In Brief
In this election petition appeal, a returning officer (Ashok Mensinkai) was accused of improperly refusing a nomination paper and subsequently giving false evidence. The High Court found the election void and directed criminal prosecution for perjury. The Supreme Court held that contradictory statements alone do not establish perjury; intentional and deliberate falsehood must be proven. Even then, prosecution requires the court to find it expedient in the interests of justice. Here, the officer's statements were consistent with the sequence of events, the nomination was incomplete and filed late, and there was no demonstrated ulterior motive. The Court set aside the prosecution direction, allowing the appeal and emphasizing that witness testimony made years later cannot be deemed deliberately false merely for inconsequential variations.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.