S. C. Jain, J. ( 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. ( 4 ) SHRI Lal, Special P. P. for CBI drew my attention towards theevidence collected by the CBI to this effect. Pee. Apartmentspvt. Ltd. No document of payment of Rs 600. 00 has been taken in possession bythe CBI. ( 4 ) SHRI Lal, Special P. P. for CBI drew my attention towards theevidence collected by the CBI to this effect. According to the statement of Shrishiv Kumar and Santokh Singh of the office of the Registrar of Companieshe was in the employment of Messrs Aar. Pee. Apartments during thisperiod and was paid Rs. 600. 00 per month. In the income tax returns filed bythe accused which have been seized by the CBI and have been placed on recordwherein he has shown a salary of Rs. 600. 00 from Aar. Pee. Apartments. According to Mr. Lal Prima facie, it is apparent that the accused was in theemployment of Aar. Pee. Apartments and that he dishonestly representedthis fact of not being in service during the suspension period and dishonestlyreceived subsistence allowance to the extent of Rs. 13,378. 80 and order offraming of charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code has been correctly passed by themetropolitan Magistrate and this revision petition desrves no merit. ( 5 ) THE offence of cheating under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is defined undersection 415. Two essential ingredients viz, deceit i. e. dishonest and fraudulentmisrepresentation to a person and (2) inducing that person to deliver theproperty. In this case, it is not in dispute that during the period January, 80to May, 1981 the accused was under suspension and he received Rs. 13,378. 80towards subsistence allowance. It is also on record that at the time of receivingsusbsistence allowance he produced certificates certifying that he did notremain in service during this period. Had these certificates not been produced,he would not have got the subsistence allowance. The plea of the petitionerthat no penal offence is made on the basis of these false certificates and it canbe only a violation of. the conduct rules is not tenable in the present circumstances of the case. From the evidence which the CBI has collectedit is prima fade established that the accused deceived the Corporationby producing the false certificates and received Rs. 13,378. 80 towards subsistence allowance though he remained in service with M/s. Aar. Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. during this period. the conduct rules is not tenable in the present circumstances of the case. From the evidence which the CBI has collectedit is prima fade established that the accused deceived the Corporationby producing the false certificates and received Rs. 13,378. 80 towards subsistence allowance though he remained in service with M/s. Aar. Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. during this period. It is settle law as laid down by thesupreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979j 3 S. C. C. 4,that while deciding the question of framing the charges under Section 227 ofthe Code the Court has undoubtedly power to sift and weigh the evidence forthe limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case againstthe accused has been made out. The test to determine a. prima facie casewould naturally depend upon the facts of each case. It is difficult to lay downarule of universal application. Where the materials placed befor the Courtdisclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedingwith the trial. In this case, from the evidence which the CBI has collected andplaced on record, a prima facie case under Section 420 is made out againstthe petitioner and I find on illegality or infirnity in the impugned order passedby the Metropolitan Magistrate on 8. 2 89 ordering that the petitioner becharged under Section 420 Indian Penal Code for cheating the corporation to the tune of Rs. 13,378. 80. The re is no jurisdictional error. I, therefore, dismiss the revisionpetition having no merit. Record of the lower Court be sent back immediately.