The judgment established the mandatory nature of recording a finding for perjury and emphasized the need for a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood in giving false evidence.

P.W. 1 in Sessions Case No. 72 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parur is the appellant. In that case the accused was convicted and sentenced for murder by judgment dt/- 22-1-1987. Appellant was also the first informant in that case and Ext. P1 is the first information statement given by him and recorded by P.W. 14 in the Sessions case. The prosecutor filed Crl.M.P. 7 of 1987 before the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to prosecute the appellant for giving false evidence. By order dt/- 2-2-1987 the Additional Sessions Judge allowed that petition and ordered the appellant to be prosecuted for having committed an offence as defined under Section 191 and made punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. Accordingly the Additional Sessions Judge filed a complaint and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parur took cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. The appeal is directed against that order.

2. Section 191 of the I.P.C. reads :

"Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound boy law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

xx xx xx xx xx".

The ingredients of the first part of the Section is evidently satisfied in this case. The only question is whether he made any statement which is false, and which he either knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true.

3. Accused in the Sessions case is a close relation of the appellant and the charge against the accused was that he murdered his child aged 15 months by throwing it in water. Appellant was not an occurrence witness though he gave Ext. P1 first information. In the first information statement he expressed a suspicion that the accused might have committed the offence. But in the box he disowned having given such a version in Ext. P1. In his evidence as P.W. 1 there were some other variation also from Ext. P1. The Sessions Judge has not come to any conclusion that any particular portion of the evidence given as P.W. 1 was false or that P.W. 1 either knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. In the opinion of the Sessions Judge :

"So far as S. 340 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned what this court has to find out is only as to whether an enquiry should be made and that too in the interest of justice regarding the alleged offence of giving false evidence. This court is not expressing any opinion on the alleged offence itself."

Finally the Judge said :

"Considering all these aspects of the case, I am of opinion that interest of justice demands an enquiry as to the question as to whether P.W. 1 has committed the offence of giving false evidence in court."

4. It is said that the complaint was thereafter filed on the allegation that either the statements in Ext. P1 or those as P.W. 1 must be false and therefore the appellant must be proceeded against. Ext. P1 cannot satisfy the requirements of S. 191 of the Indian Penal Code even if some of the statements contained therein are proved to be false to the knowledge or belief of the appellant or that he did not believe them to be true. While giving Ext. P1 P.W. 1 was not legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth and he was also not bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject. It is only an information given under Section 154 of the Code regarding commission of a cognizable offence intended to set the law in motion. Though the maker has to sign the statement which is recorded, the Session does not even say that the statement should be true to be maker's knowledge or belief or that it should be given on oath. Even a telephone information regarding commission of a cognizable offence by unknown persons could form first information under Section 1