S.S.BYAS, J. - (1.)SINCE both these revisions arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated October 38, 19/8, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. The two accused Tolapuri and Shankergiri were convicted under Section 467/34, IPO and each was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's life imprisonment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore vide his judgment dated July 4, 1977. The accused went in appeal which was partly allowed. Their convictions were maintained but the term of imprisonment was reduced to six months from that of one year. The accused have now come -up in revision to challenge their conviction and sentence.
(2.)BRIFLY stated, the prosecution case is that PW. 3 Bheekgar Swami owns 1/4 share in Aaraji Khasra No. 57 situate in Mauja Posana district Jalore. He was in possession of his share at all the relevant times. A few days before October 14, 1974, Bheekgar learnt that accused Shankergiri got the sale deed Ex. P 1 in his favour purporting to have been executed by him (Bheekgar.)According to this sale deed dated October 9, 1970, Bheekgar sold his share in the aforesaid field to accused Shanker Giri for a sum of Rs. 1000/ -. It was also got registered. Before the Sub -Registrar, accused Tolapuri wrongly identified some person as Bheekgar. Bheekgar, on learning about this forged sale deed, presented the written complaint Ex. P.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore against the revision -petitioners and four others narrating therein all the facts. It was alleged therein that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 120B, 467, 420 etc. of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Jalore under Section 157(3), Cr. PC with directions to register the case and make investigation. The case was eventually registered. During investigation, accused Shankergiri produced the sale deed Ex. P.1. The specifimen thumb impressions of accused Sohangiri were taken during investigation. The sale deed Ex. P 1 as well as the specimen thumb impressions of accused Sohangiri were sent for examination to the Rajasthan Fingerprint Bureau, Jaipur. On examination, it was found that the thumb impressions on Ex. P.1 purporting to be that of Bheekgar were not of that of Bheekgar but that of accused Sohangiri. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the two accused Shankergiri and Tolapuri in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore. The learned Magistrate framed charges under Sections 167, 419/109, 420, 467/120B, IPC against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and demanded the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined three witnesses. On the conclusion of trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the offence under Section 467/34, IPC established against both the accused Shankergiri and Tolapuri. The charges for the other offences were not taken as proved. The two accused were consequently convicted under Section 467/34, IPC and were sentenced as mentioned at the very out -set.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused -petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully. It would be proper to deal with the case of each accused separately.

(3.)AS regards accused Shankergiri, there is the evidence of the hand writing expert Shri Ajeet Krishna (PW. 6), He is the Director of the State Fingerprint Bureau, Jaipur. He deposed that he examined the disputed thumb impressions on the sale deed Ex. P.1 and compared them with the stacircien thumb impressions of accused Shankergiri on Ex P.5 and Ex P.6. He also compared the thumb impressions on Ex. P 1 with the specimen thumb impressions of Bheekgir on Ex. P.9 and Ex. P 10. Shri Ajeet Krishna was of the opinion that the disputed thumb impressions on Ex. P.1 were not of Bheekgar but were that of accused Shankergiri. The sale deed Ex. P.1 has bean executed in favour of accused Shankergiri. Since Ex. P.1 has been executed in favour of accused Shankergiri, it can be well presumed that he had a direct hand in forging sale deed Ex. P.1 in his favour. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below on this point. There appears no good and cogent reasons to set -aside this concurrent finding. As such the conviction of accused Shankergiri is proper and calls for no interference. The sentence awarded to him is not at all excessive. His revision has, thus, no force and should be dismissed.