1. The petition filed by the respondents/accused 1 to 3 for discharging them from the case in brief is as follows:

1.(a) The petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused 1 to 3, were working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively in the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation during the relevant period to this case and one Tr.R.Raghunathan, who was working as City Engineer in the said Corporation who is in superior rank to the Executive Engineer and his subordinates in the Said Corporation, He is the head of the Engineering Section in the said Corporation.

1.(b) In the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli had leveled charges for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against all the eight accused and a charge for the offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3, that All the charges levelled are found to have been based merely on surmises and conjectures and are found to be absolutely groundless, that even if the allegations in the police report are taken at their face value, they do not make out the ingredients of the offences for which charges have been leveled therein, that the charges under Section 468 and 471 I.P.C., are found to be the outcome of gross misconception of law and facts and that neither the allegations contained in the police report nor in the statement of witnesses nor in the other documents relied on by the prosecution make out the ingredients of the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 and 464 I.P.C., which is a sine qua non for attracting Sec.468 I.P.C.

1.(c) There is absolutely no scope for a charge for the offence of "forgery for purpose of cheating" punishable u/s 468 I.P.C which is just an aggravated form of forgery, that even if all the mens rea and overt acts for the offence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C are presumed to be true, they do not make out the ingredients of the said offence and that the charge u/s 468 and 478 I.P.C are found to have been levelled not only without any basis but also quite contrary to the facts ex-facie available in the documents relied upon the prosecution.

1.(d) The fundamental allegation upon which the prosecution has found its entire case is that A6 and A7 recorded false measurements in the Measurement Books as if earth and gravel had been filled in layers of 15 cm thick (each layer 15 cm thick) watered and consolidated layer by layer but without actually doing this work as found in the Measurement Books, that this fundamental allegation itself stands disproved by Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of Mr.R.Regunathan, formerly City Engineer, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, who found to have stated that he supervised the Tirunelveli New Bus-Stand works from 15.10.2001 onwards, that in the same statement he further stated as follows: "TAMIL" This situation of facts unmistakably reveals that the measurements/entries recorded by A6 and A7 are not false one.

1.(e) The technical report dated 2.8.2004 of witness No.22 Mr.A.Rampal Singh does not improve in any manner the above said position of the prosecution case, that this report is nothing but a self-serving evidence generated for the purpose, that the Technical Report, being hit by sec.162 Cr.P.C., would be totally inadmissible in evidence during trial. The said Rampal Singh, being not an expert, his statement or report would not fall under the category of "expert's evidence or expert's opinion.", that it is realised from his report that he has not carried out any test for ascertaining the percentage of compaction attained by the filled up earth, that Mr.A.Rampal Singh has not stated anywhere either in his report or in his statement as to on what scientific basis he excepted, that he has stated in his report that the measurements taken during his site inspection and verification during July 2004 tally wit