TEK CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thie case has been on the borad of this Court. Today isat No. 1 but none appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, I proceed to hearthe argument of the Counsel for CBI.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri TakChand Jain was suspended from M.C.D on 31.5.1973 and ultimately he wasdismissed from service on 26.6.1981. During his suspension period he receivedRs. 13,378.80 towards his subsistence allowance from January 1980 to May,1981 on the basis of certificate allegedly produced by him showing that he wasnot employed anywhere, nor he was engaged in any business during this period.Later on, it was revealed that actually during this period he was employedwith Messrs Aar. Pee. Apartments and was getting Rs. 600.00 per month.On the basis of these facts an FIR was lodged and investigation wasconducted by the CBI. During investigation CBI collected various, documentswhich prima facie indicated that the petitioner had been giving false certificate and obtained subsistence allowance of Rs. 13,378.80 and thus cheatedthe Corporation to the extent of that amount and a case under Section 420IPC was registered against the petitioner Tek Chand Jain and a challan wasfiled before the Metropolitan Magistrate being NC 3/84 State v. Tek ChandJain. The Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi after hearing and going throughthe record ordered framing of charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code vide judgmentdated 8.2.89.

(3.) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed. From the groundstaken in the revision petition it appears that the thrust of the petitioner'sdefence is that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitionerhad any fraudulent intention to cheat the corporation and at the most it canbe violation of the rules of service whereby the government employees shouldnot engage in any trade or business without the permission of the governmentas envisaged in Rule 15 of the CCS Rules. The other plea which seems tohave been taken by the petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove thatthe petitioner had actually been paid any payment by Aar. Pee. ApartmentsPvt. Ltd. No document of payment of Rs 600.00 has been taken in possession bythe CBI.