ORDER : These criminal revision cases and criminal original petition have been preferred against the orders passed in Crl.R.C.Nos.137 and 138 of 2011 and 69 of 2012 by the Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.853 of 2013, as petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1515 of 2011; the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.28 of 2013, as petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1439 of 2009; the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.29 of 2013, as petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1625 of 2009, in C.C.No.1578 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3. In all the petitions it is averred that the respondent has filed a final report wherein the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5. Further, it is averred in the petition that a contract has come into existence between the first accused and Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali('CPCL' in short), with regard to paving blocks for pavement and pathway in Refinery - III, Expansion Area in CPCL premises at Manali. The first and second accused by using required quantity of Cement have executed contractual work. There is no deviation on the part of the first and second accused. After completing the concerned work, final payment has been made. But the respondent, without any source has investigated to the effect that all the accused have fabricated so many documents, seals etc., and further, the first and second accused have not used the agreed Metric Tonnes of Cement and thereby, caused loss to the tune of Rs.4.75 lacs to CPCL. Further, it is averred in all the petitions that the first and second accused and the remaining accused have not done any illegal acts so as to get personal gain. Under the said circumstances, these petitions have been filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to discharge from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.1578 of 2009. 4. The Trial Court has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1515 of 2011, Crl.M.P.No.1625 of 2009 and allowed Crl.M.P.No.1439 of 2009. Against the dismissal orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1515 of 2011, Crl.R.C.No.69 of 2012 and against the dismissal order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1625 of 2009, Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2011 and against the order allowing Crl.M.P.No.1439 of 2009, Crl.R.C.No.139 of 2011 have been filed on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. 5. Against the dismissal orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1515 of 2011, Crl.R.C.No.69 of 2012 and against the dismissal order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1625 of 2009, Crl.R.C.No.138 of 2011 and against the order allowing Crl.M.P.No.1439 of 2009, Crl.R.C.No.139 of 2011 have been filed on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. 5. The III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has dismissed Crl. R.C. No. 69 of 2012, Crl. R.C. No. 138 of 2011 and thereby, confirmed the dismissal orders passed in Crl. M.P. Nos. 1515 of 2011 and 1625 of 2009 by the Trial Court. The III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai has allowed Crl. R.C. No. 137 of 2011 and thereby, setaside the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1439 of 2009 by the Trial Court and ultimately, dismissed Crl. M.P. No. 1439 of 2009. Against the orders passed in Crl. R.C. No. 69 of 2012, Crl. O.P. No. 853 of 2013 has been preferred. Likewise, against the orders passed in Crl. R.C. Nos. 137 and 138 of 2011, Crl. R.C. Nos. 28 and 29 of 2013 have been filed. 6. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, common order is passed. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused viz., M/s. Boss Infrastructure Private Limited situates at Plot No.16, 4th Floor, Harington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. The second accused viz., Seran and the third accused viz., Oree are the Directors of the first accused. The fourth accused viz., Rathinavelu has served as a Supervisor of the first accused. The fifth accused viz., E. Ravi has served as a Supervisor of M/s. P & C Constructions Private Limited. During the year 2004-2005, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and the approver by name Senthil Kumar, have hatched conspiracy at Chennai and other places, to cheat the CPCL, Manali, a Government of India Undertaking in the matter of providing paving blocks (interlock type) for pavement and pathways on the side of the roads at Refinery - III Expansions. In pursuance of their conspiracy, the second and third accused have used lesser quantity of Cement other than required quantity. The fourth and fifth accused and approver have fabricated letters of entry bearing forged CISF seals to show that 699.4 MTs of Cement has been brought into the premises of CPCL for execution of the above work. In pursuance of their conspiracy, the second and third accused have used lesser quantity of Cement other than required quantity. The fourth and fifth accused and approver have fabricated letters of entry bearing forged CISF seals to show that 699.4 MTs of Cement has been brought into the premises of CPCL for execution of the above work. But, in fact, only 534.4MTs of Cement has been brought in and used for work. Under the said circumstances, all the accused have caused a loss to the tune of Rs.4.75 lakhs to CPCL. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as criminal revision petitioners have repeatedly contended that the first accused has entered into an agreement for the purpose of constructing pathway and pavements by using paving blocks. The second and third accused are its Directors and in pursuance of the said contract, the first accused has executed the same and after getting completion report, final payment has also been given to the first accused and after lapse of four years, samples have been taken and put to analysis by Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and further, the respondent has not received any source of information with regard to alleged conspiracy and also wrongful loss caused to CPCL. Under the said circumstances, the accused Nos.1 to 5 have filed discharge petitions and the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the first, third and fifth accused and rightly allowed the petition filed by the fourth accused. But the First Appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the revision cases filed by the first, third and fifth accused and also erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the fourth accused and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Court-below are liable to be set aside and the discharge petitions filed by all the accused are liable to be allowed. 9. But the First Appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the revision cases filed by the first, third and fifth accused and also erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the fourth accused and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Court-below are liable to be set aside and the discharge petitions filed by all the accused are liable to be allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI cases has befittingly contended that in the instant case one Senthil Kumar has been treated as an approver and he has given specific statement to the effect that in pursuance of conspiracy, the accused have fabricated certain records and the first accused has utilized lesser quantity of Cement and apart from his statement witness Nos.19, 21 and 23 have clearly stated in their statements about the conspiracy and also wrongful loss caused to CPCL and in fact, the supplied quantity of Cement is 699.4 MTs whereas the quantity of cement actually used is only 534.4 MTs and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petitions filed by the first, third and fifth accused and erroneously allowed the discharge petition filed by the fourth accused. But the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the same and therefore, the present Criminal Original Petition as well as Criminal Revision Cases are liable to be dismissed. 10. The only point that has to be decided in the present proceeding is as to whether for reasons stated in the discharge petitions, the accused can be discharged from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.1578 of 2009? 11. It has already been pointed out that the specific case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of conspiracy hatched among accused, they fabricated false records and also utilized lesser quantity of cement. It is an admitted fact that one of the accused by name Senthil Kumar has been treated as an approver and he has given a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., on 28-01-2008, before the concerned Magistrate wherein it has been clearly stated about the conspiracy and also the misdeeds done by all the accused. The specific statement given by the approver is that by way of utilizing forged documents only lesser quantity of Cement has been utilized for executing contract work. The specific statement given by the approver is that by way of utilizing forged documents only lesser quantity of Cement has been utilized for executing contract work. Apart from the statement given by the approver, the Court has to look into the statement given by the persons namely, Yuvarajan, Ramakrishnan and Kannaiyan. The said Yuvarajan is running a transport company under the name and style of 'Adhilakshmi Transport' and his specific statment is that in some letters, registration numbers of his lorries have been falsely mentioned. The specific statement given by D. Ramakrishnan is that he is serving as a 'Cashier' in RTO Office and he identified certain Extracts and Registers. The specific statement of Kannaiyan is that he served in CISF and from August 2003 to June 2007, he has been posted at CISF Unit, CPCL Manali and his further statement is that several entries have not been found in the concerned Registers. 12. It has already been pointed out that the approver has given clear statement to the effect that in pursuance of conspiracy, misdeeds have been done with the assistance of some forged documents. The statement given by the approver has been clearly strengthened by the statements given by the witnesses mentioned supra. Therefore, it is quite clear that in order to substantiate the allegations mentioned in the final report, sufficient materials are available on the side of the prosecution. 13. It is true that without proper source of information, the respondent has conducted investigation. But at the same time, the approver has given clear statement and some of the witnesses have given identical statements and therefore, the first limb of argument advanced on the side of the petitioners and revision petitioners cannot be accepted. It is also true that after lapse of four years, scientific analysis has been done by an Official of Indian Institute of Technology and he has given his report, wherein it is stated that the work done is not in consonance with the requirement mentioned in the contract. 14. Even assuming that the analysis report cannot be looked into due to lapse of time as pointed out earlier, replete evidence is available on the side of the prosecution so as to come to a conclusion that due to conspiracy some material documents have been forged and in pursuance of the same lesser quantity of Cement has been utilized for executing agreed work. Therefore, viewing from any angle, this Court has not found any merit in the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner/ criminal revision petitioners and altogether, the Criminal Original Petition and Criminal Revision Cases are liable to be dismissed. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition and Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.