In Brief
A Lok Sabha-elected professor claimed election-petition service was on his staff rather than himself, and the High Court authorized perjury prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that perjury prosecution requires deliberate, conscious falsehood on a matter of substance with reasonable conviction probability and genuine expediency in justice. Mere inaccuracy or inadvertent mistakes are insufficient. Since the underlying election petition was dismissed and the statement appeared unintentional rather than malicious, prosecution was unwarranted.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.