Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The appellant is aggrieved by the direction for his prosecution for giving false evidence, as contained in the judgment-dated 30/10/1999 passed by Second Additional District Judge, burhanpur in Civil Suit No. 33b/98, as well as by the corresponding complaint made by the learned Judge whereupon cognizance of the offence under Section 193 of the IPC has been taken by JMFC, Burhanpur. However, the appeal, so far as it relates to the direction to prosecute, is not maintainable (Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Dev AIR 1996 SC 509 referred to ). ( 2. ) ADVERTING to the merits of complaint, it may be observed that it is based on a categorical finding recorded in the judgment that the appellant had given a false statement to the effect that on 01. 06. 96, plaintiff Sangda had come to the Bank to withdraw the amount of Rs. 80,000/- in question. ( 3. ) THE civil suit was instituted by Sangda, a leper aged about 70 years, for recovery of the amount on the premise that it was dishonestly misappropriated after being withdrawn from his account on 01. 06. 1996 under the garb of a false withdrawal form bearing thumb impression of someone else. While denying the allegation, the appellant, in his sworn testimony, had asserted that the amount was paid to Sangda only by him after ascertaining identity of the payee on the basis of photograph and standard thumb impression available with the Bank. However, on a critical appraisal of the evidence on record including the expert opinion, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Sangda had not even visited the Bank on 01. 06. 1996. ( 4. ) THE learned trial Judge, before invoking the provisions of section 340 of the Code, was only required to consider the following aspects of the matter -Whether a prima facie case is made out which if (i)unrebutted may have reasonable likelihood to establish the specific offence. (ii) Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action. (K. Karunakaran vs. T. V. Eachara Warrier AIR 1978 SC 290 relied on ). (ii) Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action. (K. Karunakaran vs. T. V. Eachara Warrier AIR 1978 SC 290 relied on ). A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that it was made only after examining the aforesaid questions at the closure of the case in which the alleged offence was committed. Further, as explained by the Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 , in order to deal the menace of perjury effectively, it is desirable for the courts to use the provisions more effectively and frequently than it is presently done. However, in the case on hand, the deplorable state of affairs is that the proceedings initiated against the appellant have remained stayed by virtue of order passed by this court as early as on 27. 03. 2002. ( 5. ) TO sum up, viewed from any angle, no interference is called for with a well-merited prosecution of the appellant for the offence of intentionally making a false statement on oath. ( 6. ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. As an obvious consequence, the stay granted on 27. 03. 2002 stands vacated. Appeal dismissed.