ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 assisted by Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012.

3. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. and Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012 and Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 respectively.

4. Both these criminal revision petitions are directed against the Judgments dated 17.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 03/2012 respectively whereby and whereunder the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the petitioners namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal passed by the learned trial court has been upheld and both the criminal appeals have been dismissed.

5. The learned trial court, vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in G.R. No. 301 of 1998/ T.R. No. 233 of 2011 arising out of Jamtara (Mihijam) P.S. Case No. 135/1998 dated 20.07.1998, had convicted both the petitioners namely, Nepal Hembram and Dilip Mandal under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced each of them as under:

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 419 of IPC.

(ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

(iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 467 of IPC.

(iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 468 of IPC.

(v) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 471 of IPC.

(vi) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 500 of IPC.

(vii) in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months.

(viii) all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012:

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 409/2012 submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal was working as Village Level Worker and the allegation against him is that he was instrumental in issuance of the death certificate of Nunulal Hembram. He submitted that Sukul Hembram, who had died, was also known as Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, there was no illegality in issuance of the death certificate. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that it is not in dispute that Sukul Hembram had expired and he was working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works. He further submitted that the photograph of Sukul Hembram has also been exhibited and as per the photograph and other identity documents of the person working in Chitranjan Locomotive Works, the name of the person who was working was Nunulal Hembram and accordingly, it is the specific case of the prosecution that Sukul Hembram was also known as Nunulal Hembram. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the offences against the petitioner-Dilip Mandal are proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner-Dilip Mandal had nothing to gain from issuance of the alleged forged death certificate and he was working in his official capacity only. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no charge has been framed for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, there is no question of conspiracy with the prime accused i.e. Nepal Hembram who was the person who had applied for issuance of the death certificate.

Arguments on behalf of petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 535/2012:

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petition