Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge, Dhanbad, dated 15th April, 1994, rejecting the prayer for discharge of the accused-petitioner, in a case where he has been charge-sheeted for having committed an offence under Section 13 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. 2. The petitioner i.e. the accused was the Director of Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad at the relevant time. That institution is an autonomous body having the status of a deemed University. Its employees are governed by the Central Government T.A. Rules which were circulated under Memo dated 23-7-1987, by the tho then Registrar, I.S.M. Dhanbad, with a copy to the accused-petitioner. According to the said Rules effective from 1st November, 1986 the petitioner-accused was entitled to a daily allowance (D.A.) of Rs. 80 for his stay in New Delhi being class A city, in case he did not stay in a hotel or made own arrangement for stay. He was entitled to a daily allowance of Rs. 175 in case he stays in a hotel or other establishment providing Boarding and Lodging at schedule tariffs. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner visited New Delhi on official tours during the period from 1-10-1988 to 31-3-1991 and stayed at India International Centre, New Delhi on 30 occassions. However, the prosecution has chargesheeted him only with regard to 3 visits covering the period from 18-4-1990 to 21-4-1990, 11-12-1990 to 13-12-1990 and 14-1-1991 to 18-1-1991. According to the prosecution, at the first visit the accused-petitioner stayed at India International Centre, New Delhi along with another person and at the time of check out on 21-4-1990, the Centre issued a bill for Rs. 449.25 and got the same signed by the accused, who had not made any payment thereof. On his return to Dhanbad, the accused-petitioner submitted his T.A. bill for his stay at New Delhi suppressing the fact of his stay at the Centre which was passed by the office allowing him D.A. at the rate of Rs. 80 and he received an amount of Rs. 282. On his return to Dhanbad, the accused-petitioner submitted his T.A. bill for his stay at New Delhi suppressing the fact of his stay at the Centre which was passed by the office allowing him D.A. at the rate of Rs. 80 and he received an amount of Rs. 282. Later on, the India International Centre forwarded the bill to the institute for the stay of the accused-petitioner, the payment of which was made at the instruction of the petitioner from the fund of contingency through cheque by preparing a voucher dated 21-6-1990. 4. At the second instance, the accused-petitioner visited Delhi on 11th December, 1990 and stayed till 13th December, 1990 at the said Centre, incurring a bill for a sum of Rs. 1154.15 which he had not paid at the Centre. This time also he charged T.A. on his return to Dhanbad and ad. justed the amount towards the advance already taken by him. Again the Centre forwarded the bill to the Institute and the accused sanctioned the amount for payment on 11-2-1991. The case of the prosecution is that on this occasion, he removed the enclosures of the forwarding memo dishonestly to conceal the details of expenditure incurred at the Centre. 5. At the third instance also, the accused-petitioner stayed at the India International Centre, New Delhi and on his return, he countersigned his regular T.A. for payment and received the payment of Rs. 2782 on 18-2-1991 and also sanctioned the payment of the bill of the Centre to the tune of Rs. 2245.65. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation it was revealed that the accused refunded a sum of Rs. 2,100 on 23rd May, 1991, being the l/4th D.A. already paid to him in 1990-91, as if he had been provided free boarding and lodging for his stay at New Delhi when in fact, bills were raised by the India International Centre, New Delhi and paid by the I.S.M. Dhanbad. 6. The prosecution has, thus, charged the accused-petitioner that he by his corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position dishonestly obtained pecuniary advantage for himself to the tune of Rs. 4,849.05 by dishonestly concealing the fact of his stay at India International Centre in his regular T.A. Bills and receiving D.A. at the rate of Rs. 6. The prosecution has, thus, charged the accused-petitioner that he by his corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position dishonestly obtained pecuniary advantage for himself to the tune of Rs. 4,849.05 by dishonestly concealing the fact of his stay at India International Centre in his regular T.A. Bills and receiving D.A. at the rate of Rs. 80 for his stay by his own arrangement and simultaneously allowing the payment of the bills of the India International Centre, which included the expenses of boarding, lodging and Bar etc., paid out of the funds of the I.S.M. Dhanbad. 7. The above facts, which have come to light during investigation show that there is prima facie case made out against the petitioner for framing the charge under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The plea of the accused that he had refunded the excess amount drawn in a bona fide manner at his own instance and that this was done when it was pointed out to him that he had overcharged the amount regarding tariff of his stay at the India International Centre, is yet to be proved and this is not the appropriate stage or iorum because, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot go into the complicated questions of facts. 8. Moreover, on behalf of the prosecution a case has been cited i.e. The State Punjab v. Jagdish Chandra, (Cr. Rev. 193/73) decided on 16th January, 1975, wherein it has been held that the learned Special Judge was clearly in error while holding that charging of double T.A. did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. If a public servant charges T.A. for a particular journey and represents to the higher authority that he has not charged T.A. earlier and fraudulently obtains travailing allowance for the second time, he clearly misuses his position as a public servant to his own advantage. This ruling applies to the present case, where allegedly while claiming T.A., the accused-petitioner concealed his stay at India International Centre, New Delhi and the matter of payment of bills arose on all the three occasions when the said Centre sent the bills direct to I.S.M. Dhanbad and those bills were cleared by the fund of the Institute at the instance of the accused-petitioner. This, prima facie, amounts to claiming and charging double T.A. by the accused-petitioner. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find it a fit case to take a different view than that of the trial Court that the accused should not be discharged at this stage, especially when the investigation has revealed, prima facie, that he had fraudulently cheated the I. S. M. Dhanbad. while acting as Director of the said Institution, being a public servant. However, it is made clear that whatever is contained in this judgment should no be taken as expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to prejudice the trial of the accused-petitioner. 10. Consequently, this revision application fails and is hereby dismissed, This trial Court records should be sent back fortwith, so that there is not further delay in proceeding with the same. The learned trial Court is further directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial as speedly as possible, preferably withing six months from the date of receipt of the record.