Aditya Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 36 of 2007 under section 13(1)(C)(d) read with 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by which the application for discharge has been rejected. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there is no direct evidence regarding the involvement of the revisionists and the case cannot proceed on the circumstantial evidence. It has also been submitted that as per the statement of the Deputy Director, the testing report is wrong and there was possibility of only 30% deficiency in the construction material.
(3.) LEARNED AGA has submitted that the learned court below has considered all the aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion that the revisionists were Assistant Engineers and it was their duty to inform their higher authorities regarding the sub -standard materials. It has also been submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the material used in the construction of the houses was sub -standard.;