JUDGMENT : Through this application filed under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 9.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge In-charge, Dhanbad in post conviction record of Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980 has been sought to be quashed whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been remanded to jail custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to one Nirmal Kumar Singh, the convict of Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980, on the ground that the petitioner is never the convict Nirmal Kumar Singh, rather he is the brother of Nirmal Kumar Singh, who has already died in a boat mishap. The facts giving rise this application are that a case was lodged against one Nirmal Kumar Singh and Zamil Mian @ Zamil Khan for committing murder of one Budhdev Chatterjee @ M. Chatterjee and also for causing injuries to the witnesses. On submission of the charge sheet, Nirmal Kumar Singh, was put on trial in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980, on being found guilty for the charges, was awarded with imprisonment for life. Thereupon, Nirmal Kumar Singh preferred Cr. App. No.89 of 1986 and was granted bail, during the pendency of the appeal but the appeal ultimately got dismissed, vide judgment dated 3.8.1988. Being aggrieved with that judgment, Nirmal Kumar Singh, filed S.L.P (Cr.) No.2398-99 of 1988 which was dismissed for default on 8.8.1994 as surrender certificate was not filed in spite of opportunities being given to him. Further case is that said Nirmal Kumar Singh and several others died by drowning in the Ganges in a boat mishap occurred on 6.8.1988 at Manihari Ghat and for that, compensation had been given to the dependent of the deceased (Nirmal Kumar Singh). Further case is that said Nirmal Kumar Singh and several others died by drowning in the Ganges in a boat mishap occurred on 6.8.1988 at Manihari Ghat and for that, compensation had been given to the dependent of the deceased (Nirmal Kumar Singh). But after so many years, one Uday Shankar Singh reported the matter in the year 2006 to Bank More Police Station, Dhanbad that when his brother had gone to attend last rite of his uncle Raj Narayan Singh (father of Nirmal Kumar Singh) at Varanasi, he saw Nirmal Kumar Singh over there, who was being known as Narendra Pratap Singh, whose name was also there in the invitation card as son of Raj Narayan Singh but Raj Narayan Singh had no son by the name of Narendra Pratap Singh and then he could realize that all the family members by hatching conspiracy, declared Nirmal Kumar Singh as dead and got the death certificate prepared for the reason that Nirmal Kumar Singh may not be sent jail for serving out the sentence and by doing so the family members had even taken compensation and that apart Manisha Singh, the wife of Nirmal Kumar Singh, also got her name changed as Manjula Devi. It further appears that when, Bank More police did not lodge the case, a writ application bearing no. W.P.(Cr.) No.48 of 2006, was filed by one Uday Shankar Singh praying therein to direct Officer-in-Charge of Bank More Police Station to register and investigate the case. Thereupon, case was registered as Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. case no.393 of 2006 (G.R.No.1800 of 2006) under sections 419, 420, 467, 468,465, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, one another petition was filed in the said writ application wherein prayer was made to direct police officials to arrest Nirmal Kumar Singh, a life convict and to remand to jail custody to serve out the sentence. Upon which, order was passed by this Court only to the effect to produce life convict Nirmal Kumar Singh before the court concerned, so that he may be remanded to jail custody for serving out the sentence. On receiving the said order, 5th Additional Sessions Judge In-charge, Dhanbad, directed the concerned police officer to produce the life convict within a period of four weeks. On receiving the said order, 5th Additional Sessions Judge In-charge, Dhanbad, directed the concerned police officer to produce the life convict within a period of four weeks. Thereupon Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad police station sent a letter dated 9.5.2008 to Assistant Public Prosecutor stating therein that Nirmal Kumar Singh is in judicial custody in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) Police Station caseno.393 of 2006 and, therefore, steps be taken for his remand in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980. When the matter was moved by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the concerned court issued production warrant on 17.6.2008 against Nirmal Kumar Singh for his production in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980. Pursuant to that, when Nirmal Kumar Singh was produced before the court, learned court keeping in view the order passed in Cr. App. No.89 of 1986 (R) and the connected matter as well as order passed in writ application no.48 of 2006, issued conviction warrant for serving out the sentence, though a petition had also been filed on behalf of Narendra Pratap Singh to the effect that he is never Nirmal Kumar Singh but no order was passed on that petition Being aggrieved with the said order, this writ application has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was Nirmal Kumar Singh, who had been convicted in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980, who died on 6.8.1988 in a boat mishap, still this petitioner known as Narendra Pratap Singh was remanded as Nirmal Kumar Singh for serving out the sentence which had been awarded against Nirmal Kumar Singh and not this petitioner but the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad without holding any enquiry regarding identity of the petitioner, remanded the petitioner in a very mechanical manner without observing procedure established by law and, therefore, order dated 17.5.2008 under which conviction warrant was issued against this petitioner, who is different person than Nirmal Kumar Singh, is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel in order to substantiate his case submits that, in fact, Nirmal Kumar Singh died in a boat mishap which fact gets substantiated from the certificate issued by the District Administration after making verification and even Investigating Officer of the present case verified this fact and found occurrence of boat mishap and issuance of certificate true and not only that even Nageshwar Singh who is none other than elder brother of the petitioner confirmed the said fact of the death of Nirmal Kumar Singh in course of investigation of a case, bearing no. B.S.City P.S. case no.205 of 1989 and the police after making verification submitted final form showing Nirmal Kumar Singh as dead. That apart, Narendra Pratap Singh had earlier been introduced by Nageshwar Prasad Singh before the State Bank of India, Ramgarh Branch for opening the bank account in his name. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that Nirmal Kumar Singh and Narendra Pratap Singh both sons of late Raj Narayan Singh are two different persons and both of them had read in different schools, which would be evident from the transfer certificate issued by the Principal of two schools. Thus, in spite of ample evidence being there to establish that this petitioner is never Nirmal Kumar Singh, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad remanded this petitioner taking him as Nirmal Kumar Singh for serving out the sentence in a very mechanical manner, which order is not sustainable as one cannot be deprived of his life and liberty without observing due process of law or procedure established by law. Under this situation, the order under which conviction warrant was issued against the petitioner is fit to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that statements made in the writ petition itself indicate that the Investigating Officer in course of investigation of the said Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S case no.393 of 2006 has collected several materials which, prima facie, go to show that this petitioner is none other than Nirmal Kumar Singh, who was convicted and sentenced to life in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1980 and this mischief has been done simply for the reason that Nirmal Kumar Singh may not serve out the sentence of life imposed upon him. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, issue involved as to whether the petitioner claimed himself as Narendra Pratap Singh is, in fact, Narendra Pratap Singh or he is Nirmal Kumar Singh, appears to be contentious, which cannot be resolved in this writ application, rather Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, who is in scisin of the case bearing Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. case no.393 of 2006 is competent to adjudicate this issue which needs to be adjudicated at the earliest, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances where the question of life and liberty of a person is involved. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ application is disposed of.