The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a material matter before proceeding with an enquiry under S.340 of the Code, and the need for judicial pronouncements to be moderate and polite.

Under S.195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if any offence, including the one punishable under S.199 of the Indian Penal Code, is alleged to be committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any court, the competent Magistrate can take cognizance only on the complaint in writing of I hat court or of any other court, to which that court is subordinate. An offence under S.199 of the Penal Code involves any statements in any declaration made or subscribed, which is false and which the maker knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object, for which declaration is made or used and which declaration any court of justice or any public servant or other person is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact. A declaration, which satisfies these conditions, made in an affidavit filed before court may attract an offence punishable under S.199 of the Penal Code.

2. When such an offence is committed, in or in relation to any proceeding in any court, court cannot straight away file a complaint. Court can take action either suo motu or on an application made to it. But, before proceeding suo motu or on an application, to file a complaint under S.195(1)(b) of the Code, Court must form an opinion that it is expedient, in the interest of justice, that an enquiry is held into the offence. That means, an enquiry itself has to be held only if-it is found expedient, in the interest of justice. Otherwise, matter can be dropped then and there. But, if a complaint is to be filed, a preliminary enquiry, contemplated under S.340 of the Code, is a must and it must be followed by a recorded finding that a complaint has to be filed, in the interest of justice. Then alone, a complaint, in writing, could be filed before the competent Magistrate.

3. Such satisfaction of expediency in the interest of justice, is insisted because the court may not be justified in wasting time and prosecuting people on trifles. Some inaccuracy in a statement, which may be innocent or inadvertent or immaterial, may not justify a prosecution as expedient in the interest of justice. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a mailer of substance and the court must be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge and that prosecution of the offender is necessary, in the interest of justice. Otherwise, time of the court, which has to be usefully devoted for dispensation of justice, will be wasted on such enquiries. Parties and witnesses may be making many statements which are incorrect. Some of them maybe innocent, inadvertent or immaterial. Some may be intentional also. Courts may not be justified in resorting to enquiries in all such cases under S.340. If such a course is adopted, there could be as much or even more enquiries than the number of cases pending before courts. Judicial wisdom and experience must warn the courts, in order to have circumspection in these matters. Parties to the litigation or even strangers may be interested, on account of extraneous considerations, in moving I he court for action under S.340 of the Code. Before proceeding to have an enquiry under S.340, court must consider whether it is worthwhile in public interest or not. It is not every false declaration or statement that is intended to be the subject matter of prosecution. Purpose behind S.199 of the Penal Code and the check sand balances, provided under Ss.195 and 340 of the Code, will have to enter the judicial mind before attempting to have an enquiry under S.340 of the Code.

4. In O.S. No. 132 of 1954, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, Mr. K. Karunakaran (present Chief Minister and former Opposition Leader) was a witness. Summons was issued to him to appear before court for giving evidence. Through his advocate, he moved an application and got an adjournment to 27-1-1989. On that date also, his counsel moved an affidavit for adjournment, on the ground that Mr.