NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on mere suspicion or conjecture and must be backed by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating commission of the offence.
Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while hearing applications arising from a trademark dispute filed by Britannia Industries Ltd. over the alleged misuse of its “GOOD DAY” mark by another firm.
The court was dealing with a lawsuit filed by Britannia alleging unauthorised use of the “GOOD DAY” trademark by Desibites Snacks Pvt. Ltd. while selling confectionery products.
During the hearing, the respondent filed an application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia’s representative, alleging that false statements had been made on oath before the court.
The High Court noted that the allegations stemmed from a discrepancy relating to the corporate identity of the defendant company.
The plaintiff had placed on record an extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing the name “Desi Bites Foods Pvt. Ltd.”, whereas the correct corporate name was “Desibites Snacks Pvt. Ltd.”
The discrepancy, the court observed, involved the insertion of a space between the words “Desi” and “Bites”, along with the substitution of the word “Foods” in place of “Snacks.”
However, the judge also pointed out that the defendants themselves had used an incorrect description of the company name on their product packaging, where it appeared as “Desi Bites Snacks Pvt. Ltd.”, again inserting a space between “Desi” and “Bites.”
“It is settled law that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on mere surmise or suspicion and that there must be clear evidence of the commission of the offence of perjury,” the court said.
“In the present case, the defendants’ claim is based on mere surmise and conjecture, and there is no unimpeachable evidence against the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case for initiating such proceedings,” the judge added.