In order to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC, the court must be satisfied that the person charged has intentionally given false evidence and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the person for the offense. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind the act complained of must also be established.

Order :- In this Rule, which was obtained on 12th Feb, 1980, the petitioner, who has admittedly retired from the services of the Respondent Corporation of Calcutta, has prayed for drawing up proceedings under Sec. 340 of the Cr. P.C. 1973, which is to the following effect :-

340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec. 195 :- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in cl.(b) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate,

against the Respondent officials of the Corporation of Calcutta, after such or necessary enquiry and then to direct the learned Registrar of the Court, to forward a complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinafter. The case as submitted by Mr. Banerjee, has really a chequered career. The Respondent Corporation of Calcutta is hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation.

2. It has been stated that in or about 1944, the petitioner was appointed as a "Draftsman" in the Chief Engineer's Department of the said Corporation and thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 7th April 1946, he applied, and was ultimately appointed to the post of 'Draftsman' in charge of (Blue Print) Section, Drainage Department of the said Corporation, on being selected on 1st Mar. 1947, by the Water Work's Committee. It was the case of the petitioner that he was duly confirmed in that post and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post, were not only risky and dangerous, but they were onerous, apart from being full of responsibilities. It was claimed that in view of such character and nature of the job, on representations being made, the Standing Finance Committee of the said Corporation, resolved on or about 21st Jan, 1965, that the petitioner amongst others, should be granted a Special Pay equivalent to 1/5th of the basic pay. Apart from the nature and character of the duties performed, it has been stated that such recommendations were made on consideration of the fact that the employees concerned including the petitioner, were required to perform their duties beyond the office hours and even on holidays. The petitioner has stated that the resolution, by an order of the said Corporation dated 19th March, 1965, was also duly approved and ratified and accordingly, the Schedule of establishments as contemplated by Sec. 78 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was amended. Apart from the hazards of employment to the concerned post, the petitioner has also stated or given the particulars of such dangerous materials or substances, which were required to be dealt with by him. It has further been stated that because of the character of employment joint representations were made to the Commissioner of the said Corporation, for necessary protection and security and at last, it was decided that persons employed in the department in question, should be provided with a pair of rubber gloves. It was the allegations of the petitioner that even in spite of such directions, nothing was done.

3. It was the case of the petitioner that in 1971, he was transferred with some motive, from th