1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATIONS NOS.41 AND 42 OF 2010 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2010 Dominc Nazareth …. Petitioner V/s STATE, through P.P. & Anr. …. Respondents AND CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2010 Mahavir Nadar …. Petitioner V/s STATE, through P.P. & Anr. …. Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE 29/09/2010 ORDER : Heard. 2. These revision petitions have been filed by accused no.2, Mahavir and accused no.3, Domnic in Sessions Case No.41/2009 against order dated 19/07/2010 directing framing of charge against them along with others under Sections 304,307,326 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The submission of Shri Arun Bras De Sa, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the said accused is that even if the contents of the entire charge sheet are admitted as true, no case was made out against the said accused for the framing of charge. Learned Counsel submits that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case for 2 framing of charge against the said accused. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Adalat Pandit & Anr. V/s. State of Bihar (2010 (6) SCC 469). The learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 19/07/2010, has rightly concluded that the observations made by this Court at the time of granting bail to some of the accused could not be considered at the time of framing of charge against the said accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out certain statements, particularly, those of complainant Joe Almeida as well as Francis, who had categorically stated that A2 Mahavir and A3 Domnic were encouraging Zenito to assault. This is not a stage to go into probative value of the said statements. Suffice to say that the said statements of the said witnesses prima facie show the involvement of the accused in the alleged assault. 4. In my view, the impugned order cannot be faulted. I find there is no merit in these revision petitions. Consequently, the same are dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-