A finding of expediency in the interest of justice is a necessary condition precedent for filing a complaint under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Smt. Kamla Devi has instituted this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking relief in respect of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on January 5, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1990.

2. In Civil Suit No. 205 of 1983, Smt, Kamla Devi and others v. Amar Nath and others, Dhian Chand, who is respondent in the present petition, appeared as defendants witness No 4, The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st class (tl) Hamirpur, on March 30, 1988, Dhian Chand, according to the petitioner, perjured himself An application was made by Smt Kamla Devi, before the decision in the suit, under section 340, Cr P C with the prayer that a complaint be made against Dhian Chand for having committed an offence under section 193 of the I P. C. during the course of judicial proceeding. Dhian Chand filed a reply dated June 8, 1988 to it. The learned Sub-Judge did not advert to the alleged offence under section 193, I. P. C. having been committed by DW 4 Dhian Chand in the judgment by which he disposed of the suit. He discussed the evidence of DW 4 Dhian Chand in paragraph 9 of the judgment wherein he noticed that DW 4 Dhian Cband denied in the cross-examination that: “......due to the litigation/strained relations with the plaintiff, he is deposing falsely..."

3. The application under section 340, Cr. P. C. was disposed of by an order dated December 1, 1989. It is a detailed order running into several paragraphs. The conclusion recorded by the learned Judge is in the following words: "On the face of the certified copies of the judgment as referred above, it comes to light that respondent Dhian Chand has made false statements, before the Court with the knowledge or reasons to believe that the statement/versions were false. His evidence reveals that he has not only deposed falsely to answer one question but has deposed falsely while answering more than four questions which were put to him by the Counsel of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 205 of 1983. Thus, having regard to the documentary evidence, I am of the firm view that the statement given by respondent in the course of judicial proceedings on oath, the copy of which is Ex, P-7 is knowingly false and believed by the respondent to be such. Application is accordingly allowed and a separate complaint under section 193, I. P. C. is being filed against the respondent......"

4. An appeal was filed by Dhian Chand against the aforesaid order. That appeal was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, by his order of January 5, 1991, as noticed earlier. The learned Judge has, after noticing the relevant facts, concluded, in paragraph 5 of the order, that: "...In view of the above discussion and findings above, the appeal is accepted and the order of the trial Court dated 1-12-1989 for instituting the complaint under section 193, I. P. C. against Dhian Chand is set aside..."

5. It is this order of the learned District Judge which is under challenge in the present petition.

6. The respondent has appeared through Shri Kuldip Singh and has filed a reply. Various pleas have been taken in support of the order made by the learned District Judge. What was, however, basically urged by Shri Kuldip Singh was that the order of the learned District Judge did not merit interference by this Court for the reason that no conclusion was recorded either by the learned Sub-Judge in his order dated December 1, 1989 nor has it been found, even by the learned District Judge, that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence under section 193, I. P. C. said to have been committed by respondent Dhian Chand. As such, the order directing the filing of a complaint against respondent Dhian Chand could not be upheld and no interference should be made by this Court with the order of the learned District Judge reversing that of the learned Sub-Judge. Section 340 (1), Cr. P. C. reads: "340. Procedure in cases mentione