IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2008 SHRI. JOSE A. A. S. BRAGANZA AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus S T A T E THROUGH P. P. ... Respondent Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 7th July, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Counsel and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of both parties agree that the impugned Order does not spell out as to how the accused can be prosecuted for the alleged offences and that the entire order deals only with sanction. It appears that certain works were carried out and certified by both the accused in the sum of Rs.4,20,317/- but in fact the said works were not worth more than Rs.1,24,722/-. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused contends that the contractor who carried out the said works is not a party to the criminal case filed. He further submits that the said sum of Rs.4,20,317/- was directly paid to the contractor by Director of Municipal Administration and therefore the accused could not be charged for misappropriation as well. The learned trial Court does not appear to have dealt with, prima facie, as to how any of the offences alleged against the present accused have been committed by them. In the light of the above, it would be necessary for the prosecution to disclose and for the learned trial Court to state as to under what offences the present accused can be charged. In the light of the above, the impugned Order is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to examine the material against the accused as to for what offences they could be charged and tried. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.