ANJU SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order on charge dated 1.4.2002 as well as charge framed on the same date by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under:-

(2.) The order on charge is one page order and it would be of benefit if the same is set out in toto:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the State submitted that if there was an argument to commit an illegality as was being sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then there would have been no difficulty in saying that the charges ought not to have been framed. However, he submitted that the chit that was being run by the complainant, was not an illegal one and did not fall within the definition of chit, as appearing in Section 2(2)1 of the said Act. He submitted that the transactions that were being carried out by the complainant were in the nature of the transaction described in Explanation (b)to Section 2(a) of the said Act. That being the case, the same did not fall within the definition of chit and, therefore, was not covered by the said Act. Clearly, according to the learned counsel for the State, the complainant was not indulging in any illegal activity.