Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Devender Singh on 29 November, 2025
____________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK GOEL
ACJM-02-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
____________________________________________________
CBI vs. DEVENDER SINGH & ORS.
Case No. : CC No. CBI/464/2019
FIR/RC No. : DAI-1998-A-0068
dated 31.12.1998
U/s : 120B r/w Section 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC
Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT120010782019
Name of the Complainant : The FIR was registered on
source information.
Name, parentage & address : (i) Devender Singh
of the accused persons S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh,
R/o G-104, Ratti Ram
Bagh, Raj Nagar, Part-II,
New Delhi, working as
Personnel Assistant-cum-
Time Keeper.
(ii) Girdhari Lal
Jr. Supervisor (Plumber)
S/o Sh. Khuba Ram,
R/o B-215, Manglapuri,
Part-II, New Delhi.
(Proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 19.11.2012).
(iii) Shaikh Abdul Rashid
S/o Late Sh. Akram-ul-
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 1 of 53
RC- DAI-1998-A-0068
CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.11.29
15:22:59 +0530
Haque, R/o Nand Ram
Park, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi-57.
(Proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 24.03.2015).
(iv) Illiayak Ahmed Rizvi
@ Vikas Sharma @ Miya,
Private person 'Jyotish',
R/o 4121/3, Jagjivan
Niwas, Regharpura, Karol
Bagh, Delhi.
(accused has already been
convicted and sentenced in
plea-bargaining
proceedings vide order
dated 06.06.2016.)
The plea of the accused persons: Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 15.03.2001
Date of Judgment : 29.11.2025
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Satish Kumar Garg, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI.
Sh. D.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused Devender Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Devender Singh (A-1), Girdhari Lal (A-2), Sheikh Abdul Rashid (A-3) and Iliayak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma @ Miyaji (A-4) were sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420 467, 468, 471, 511 IPC. Accused Devender Singh (A-1), Girdhari Lal (A-2) and Shaikh Abdul Rashid (A-3) were also __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 2 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:23:06 +0530 charge-sheeted for offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 511 IPC.
FACTS
2. The present FIR was registered on source information that a network of agents operating in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi was active in procuring forged and fake educational certificates which were used for getting employment in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi. Devender Singh in criminal conspiracy with Girdhari and on paying Rs.4,000/- to agent, Shri Miyaji procured fake mark sheet showing that Sh. Girdhari passed in 1996 High School Examination with roll No.1427170, conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Panawali. This fake certificate was utilized by Sh. Girdhari Lal to get his promotion as Jr. Supervisor. Shri Sheikh Abdul Rashid also obtained fake mark sheet with roll No.1482176 from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College of having shown him passed High School Examination in 1996.
3. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Devender Singh was Sr. Personnel Assistant-cum-Time Keeper in Centaur Hotel and was also President of Employees Union. During investigation, searches were conducted at residential and official premises of all the accused. During the search of Sheikh Abdul Rashid's residence, 'one hand map' showing the address of one 'Miyaji' Tentwala, Jahangirpuri and a mark sheet of roll No.1482176 of High School Examination, 1996 of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali, Muzaffarnagar related documents were recovered. Further, from the residence of __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 3 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:23:13 +0530 accused Girdhari Lal, one fake original High School Examination Mark sheet of roll No.142717-year 1996 in the name of Girdhari Lal issued by the Principal, Babu Singh Smarak Inter College also one letter dated 16.7.96 written by Shri Girdhari Lal, Sr. Mechanic addressed to DGM Hotel along with other relevant documents were recovered. Further during the house search of Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi, High School Certificate as well as mark sheet of roll No.092181 of the year 1982 in name of Vikas Sharma issued from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, a marriage certificate name of Vikas Sharma and also photocopy of fake T.C. of Ashok Kumar (who is involved in case RC-DA1- 1998-A-0064) were recovered. Further during the house search of accused Devender, one photocopy of fake High School Examination marksheet in the name of accused Girdhari Lal was recovered.
4. During investigation, it came to light that accused Girdhari Lal joined as General Mechanic Plumber on 22.12.82 and later on got promoted as General Mechanic Plumber Grade-I in the year 1986 and further promoted as Senior General Mechanic Plumber in 1993 and later on he submitted letter dated 16.7.1996 addressed to DGM, Centaur Hotel stating that he had appeared for matriculation examination from BSSIC, Panawali as private candidate and accordingly have passed the Matriculation Exam from above mentioned school and he enclosed a photocopy of the said fake and forged mark sheet issued on 21.6.1996. Further vide letter dated 30.7.1996 Girdhari was promoted as Junior Supervisor General Mechanic (Plumber). Then vide letter dated 26.12.1996 Girdhari's promotion to the post of Junior Supervisor __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 4 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:23:20 +0530 General Mechanic (Plumber) was withdrawn on the basis of vigilance report dated 5.11.1996. It is also revealed that departmental proceedings have also been initiated by the department of Centaur Hotel, New Delhi, against accused Girdhari Lal.
5. Investigation further revealed that accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid staff No. 67930 was initially appointed as Wireman on 10.8.82 who got promoted as Electrician on 12.7.1985. He was promoted to Senior Electrician vide letter dated 30.7.1994. Vide letter dated 16.7.96 he submitted a mark sheet of High School examination 1996 of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, M.Nagar. Further vide letter dated 10.9.1996 of DGM, Centaur Hotel, the mark sheet of accused Shaikh Abdul Rashid was sent to Vigilance Manager for verification. Further vide letter of AGM, Centaur Hotel he was served with departmental charge sheet for submitting fake mark sheet. Departmental Enquiry was conducted by department of Centaur Hotel, wherein he submitted apology to forgive his mistake and allow him to work as Sr. Electrician. Accused Shaikh Abdul Rasheed was demoted to the grade of Electrician Gr.I vide letter dated 29.8.1997 as punishment by Centaur Hotel.
6. Investigation further revealed led that Sh. Girdhari Lal had submitted in his own handwritten statement/application dated 07.04.1998 addressing to General Manager (HRD), Centaur Hotel, Delhi Airport, New Delhi, and copy to Security-cum- Vigilance Officer, wherein he has written that Devender Singh, Union President, took him to Miya (tout) at Jahangirpuri to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 5 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:23:37 +0530 whom he gave Rs. 4,000/- and who assured that certificate will be given to him within few days. Thereafter on 16.7.1996 Devender Singh brought a typed letter on which he (Girdhari) signed and alongwith one photocopy of the fake mark sheet he submitted the same to DGM, whereby he got promoted. It was also revealed that it was in his (Girdhari) knowledge that Sh. Devender Singh also procured forged and fake certificate for Shaikh Abdul Rashid (Co-accused).
7. During investigation it was revealed from Shri Sukhpal Singh, Principal, Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Phalauda, Chittora, Muzaffar Nagar that the alleged mark sheets and certificate in the name of accused Girdhari, Shaikh Abdul Rashid, Vikas Sharma @ Illiyak were not issued from their school. It was revealed from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad that the mark sheet and Certificate of High School Examination, 1982 of Shri Vikas Sharma were fake. The fake mark sheets and certificate of High School Examination, 1982 of accused Girdhari, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Vikas Sharma @ Illiyak bear the signature of Principal as S.P. Singh, who is the present Principal of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College. Investigation revealed that these signatures as S.P. Singh do not pertain to the present Principal Sh. Sukhpal Singh as they have been forged. Investigation further revealed that Babu Singh Smarak School was not registered for private candidates in the year 1996 during which the mark sheets of Girdhari and Shaikh Abdul Rashid were issued as private candidate. Further, that fake mark sheet and certificate of Vikas Sharma of year 1982 also bears signature as 'S P Singh' whereas Sh. Sukhpal Singh had joined as Principal __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 6 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:23:45 +0530 in the year 1990 at Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, U.P. Investigation revealed that Iliayak Ahmed Rizvi besides arranging fake certificates for others also procured fake 10 th class mark sheet and certificate for himself in the name of Vikas Sharma which he utilized fraudulently for getting his marriage registered.
8. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
9. During the course of proceedings, accused Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma @ Miya (A-4) has already been convicted and sentenced in the plea-bargaining proceedings vide order dated 06.06.2016. Accused Girdhari Lal (A-2) and accused Shaikh Abdul Rashid (A-3) have expired and proceedings against them were abated vide orders dated 19.11.2012 and 24.03.2015.
CHARGE
10. Vide order dated 01.03.2005, charges were framed under Section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused persons, u/s 420 r/w 511 IPC was framed against accused Shaikh Abdul Rashid and u/s 467,468 and 471 against accused Girdhari.
EVIDENCE
11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-two (22) witnesses:-
i. PW-1 Insp. R.S Bedi deposed that on 07.01.1999, the search was conducted at the house of Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi in the presence of independent witness Rakesh Kumar Alia, and the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 7 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:23:56 +0530 incriminating documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. PW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
ii. PW-2 O. Rajesh deposed that he had prepared the search- cum-seizure memo dated 07.01.1999 in presence of other independent witnesses and it contains description of five incriminating documents which were recovered during the house search of accused Devender Singh which is Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B (running into two pages). The seized document i.e. photocopy of High School Marksheet in the name of Girdhari Lal is Ex. PW2/C. PW2 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
iii. PW-3 Rakesh Kumar Arya deposed that on 07.01.1999, he was requested by Sh. Vivek Dhir, Insp. CBI to associate his team for search in the House of Vikas Sharma @ Illiayk Rizvi. Before conducting the search, Vivek Dhir confirmed from Vikas Sharma that he is the same person who was known as Miaji @ Illiayk Rizvi and thereafter search was conducted at his premises and search-cum-seizure memo already Ex. PW1/A was prepared.
PW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
iv. PW-6 Kusum Bhatnagar deposed that she did not remember anything about the present case as case is very old.
PW6 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 8 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:24:15 +0530 v. PW-7 Om Prakash deposed that on 07.01.1999, he along with A Babu, the then Inspector and two independent witnesses namely Ashok Kumar and Charan Singh (from DDA) searched the house of Sheikh Abdul Rashid and search-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW7/A was prepared regarding seizure of document D-9 Ex. PW8/A in RC 64/98, document D-10 Ex. PW7/B and D-37 Mark PW7/C. PW7 was only cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and not by Ld. counsels for other accused persons.
vi. PW8 Prabhakar Dwivedi deposed that on 08.06.2000, he had been entrusted with a letter (Ex. PW8/A) of the same date by SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi directing him to meet Ms. Achala Khanna, US Admn, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and she directed him to contact Deputy Secretary of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Deputy Secretary gave him a letter (Mark PW8/B) which he handed over to IO.
PW8 was only cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and not by Ld. counsels for other accused persons.
vii. PW9 Sanjay Kandpal deposed that in the present case, he attended the CBI office as a witness to the disclosure statement of Devender Singh on the directions of his senior officers. He identified his signatures on document D-22 Ex. PW9/A and document D-23 Ex. PW9/B. PW9 was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite opportunity being given.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 9 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.Digitally signed by
MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:24:22 +0530 viii. PW10 Charan Singh deposed that in the present case he attended the CBI office as a witness to the house search of Sheikh Abdul Rashid on 07.01.1999. He identified his signatures on search cum-seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. PW10 was only cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and not by Ld. counsels for other accused persons.
ix. PW11 Ashok Kumar deposed that in the present case he attended the CBI office as a witness to the house search of Sheikh Abdul Rashid on 07.01.1999. He identified his signatures on search cum-seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. PW11 was only cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and not by Ld. counsels for other accused persons.
x. PW12 Dinesh Kumar Upretti deposed that in the present case, he attended the CBI office as a witness and one lady officer had shown him some documents. He correctly identified his signatures on document D-16 i.e. search-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW12/A. He along with CBI team and one other independent witness reached Centaur Hotel approx at 11:30 am on 07.01.1999 and search of some lockers were carried out in their presence by the CBI officials.
PW12 was only cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and not by Ld. counsels for other accused persons.
xi. PW13 M.S Chopra deposed that in the present case, he was __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 10 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.Digitally signed by MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:24:31 +0530 independent witness in whose presence the handwriting/specimen signatures of Sukhpal Singh were taken and the said documents are Ex. PW13/A (Colly) 10 pages.
PW13 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
xii. PW14 DSP Shobha Dutta deposed that on a reliable source information that a network of Agent is operating in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi, who were active in procuring forged and fabricated educational certificates for getting jobs on the basis of the same, the FIR RC 68/98 was registered Ex. PW14/A (D-1). After registration of this case, searches were conducted at the residential and official premises of the accused. The search-cum- seizure memo dated 07.01.1999 regarding search at the residential premises of Devender is Ex. PW2/A (also Ex. PW14/B) vide which the forged/fake Education Certificate of Girdhari Lal was recovered which is Ex. PW2/C. The letter dated 16.07.1996 from Girdhari Lal to DGM Centaur Hotel is Ex.
PW14/C, fake photocopy of High School Educational Certificate is Ex. PW14/D, Letter from Girdhari Lal to Regional GM pertaining to his 10th pass certificate is Ex. PW14/E (D-6), Letter dated 30.07.1996 to Girdhari Lal from DGM, Admn. Centaur Hotel pertaining to his promotion to the post of Junior Supervisor, General Mechanic Plumber is Ex. PW14/F (D-7) (Colly) running into 2 pages. The Marriage certificate of Vikas Sharma @ Iliak Ahmad Rizvi @ Miaji is Ex. PW14/G (D-13). The personal search-cum-arrest memo of Vikas Sharma @ Illiayk Rizvi @ Miaji, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Girdhari Lal and Devender Singh are Ex. PW14/H, Ex. PW14/I, PW14/J and Ex. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 11 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:24:49 +0530 PW14/K (D-15) respectively. The production-cum-seizure memo dated 07.01.1999 vide which the personal files of Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Devender Singh, Raj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Rekha Kashyap was seized is Ex. PW14/L (D-17). She correctly identified her signature on disclosure statement of accused Devender Singh Ex. PW9/A (D-22) and of accused Illiayk Ahmad Rizvi Ex. PW9/B (D-23). The letter dated 24.03.1999 to the Principal of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Muzaffarnagar for verifying the Educational Certificate of Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Ashok Kumar and Vikas Sharma is Ex. PW14/M (D-24) and the reply of abovesaid letter is already Ex. PW7/D (D-25). The production-cum-seizure memo dated 25.11.1999 Ex. PW14/N (D-26). The letter dated 06.12.1999 to Ms. Kusum Bhatnagar, Addl. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP is Ex. PW14/O (D-28) running into two pages (Colly). She correctly identified her signature of Ex. PW6/A. The production-cum-seizure memo dated 07.05.2000 vide which she had seized some documents from Vigilance of Centaur Hotel, New Delhi is Ex. PW14/P (D-30) running into 9 pages (Colly). The production-cum-seizure memo dated 02.06.2000 vide which she had seized a handwritten letter dated 07.04.1998 of Girdhari Lal addressed to GM, HRD and copy to Security cum Vigilance officer is Ex. PW14/Q (running into two pages). The letter dated 13.06.2000 to CFSL, Director is Ex. PW14/R vide which the questioned handwriting of Devender on the handwritten map (Ex. PW7/C) and fake Educational Certificates of Ashok Kumar, Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Vikas Sharma along with specimen handwriting of Devender, Sukhpal Singh and Vikram Singh, were sent to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 12 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:24:56 +0530 CFSL for obtaining expert opinion. She collected the CFSL report (D-43) dated 08.09.2000. She recorded the statement of Sukhpal Singh Pawar, Ompal Singh, Ajit Singh Kataria, Surender Kumar Vij, Anita Gulati, Harish Kumar, V.S Bedi, CBI officers/officials, who conducted the searches and independent witnesses of the searches. She also sent letters to various Educational Institutes and obtained information that the above- mentioned Educational Mark Sheets and Certificates were fake. The production cum seizure memo (D-34), vide which she seized two Original marksheets pertaining to year 1982 and 1996 from Mahinder Singh, head clerk, Babu Singh Smarak Inter-college, Muzaffar Nagar UP. These original Marksheet were obtained so as to show that visually also one can make out the difference in the format and pattern of Marksheet, whereas the fake Educational Certificates of accused Girdharilal and accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid were totally different in appearance and in respect to original certificates pertaining to above-noted institutions of the said years. One letter was also seized through Ex. PW14/6 which proves that during the relevant period in which accused Illiayk Ahmad Rizvi obtained the Educational Certificates under the signature of S.P Singh (D-41) whereas during the period 1982, the Principal of said college was Sh. C.S Pundhir and Ex. PW7/C3 confirms the said fact. The opinion of hand writing expert was filed on record along with the other relied upon documents and as per the opinion of the handwriting expert, it is clearly pointed out that accused Devender is person responsible writing Q12 and gave positive opinion in respect of the same. The admitted handwriting and signature of the then Principal Sh. S.P Singh was sent to CFSL for expert opinion as __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 13 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:25:03 +0530 his signatures were forged by the accused persons on Marksheet/Educational certificates pertaining to Girdhari, Iliak Rizvi and Sheikh Abdul Rashid. The handwriting expert gave the opinion that the writing and signatures of Sh. S.P Singh from A-7 to A-10 were forged.
PW14 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender. She deposed that she had not received any written complaint/tehrir. She further deposed that she did not remember whether she had seized any documents from SHO PS Mahipalpur. It is correct that no fake Marks sheet of accused Devender was recovered during investigation.
xiii. PW15 S.C Mittal deposed that on 14.06.2000, few questioned specimen and admitted documents were received in CFSL from SP, CBI, ACB vide letter dated 13.06.2000 (Ex. PW14/R) (D-36) and he had carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents with required scientific instruments and compared them with each other and on the basis of comparative data available in the general and individual handwriting characteristics and on the basis of principle of Handwriting Science, he had formed his opinion vide report dated 05.09.2000 Ex. PW15/A (Part of D-43). The forwarding letter of Director, CFSL, CBI to SP, ACB, CBI dated 08.09.2000 vide which the report was forwarded to CBI is Ex. PW15/B. PW15 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender Singh and he deposed that it is correct that in Q12 no name of addressee and sender has been mentioned. It is correct that in Q12 no date has been mentioned. He had not given any opinion on the age of Q12 as the same was not asked. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 14 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:25:10 +0530 He had not given any opinion on the handwriting outside the circled portion Mark Q12.
xiv. PW16 Mohd Ayub Farooqui deposed that on 07.01.1999, a search was conducted in Centaur Hotel. In this search, three lockers of Devender Singh, Sheikh Abdul Rashid and Girdhari Lal were searched and from each locker, incriminating documents were seized by CBI officers. He correctly identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure memo already Ex. PW14/A. PW16 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender and he deposed that it is correct that at the time of opening the lockers at Centaur Hotel, the concerned Allottee of lockers were not called. He cannot see whether accused Devender Singh was present or not.
xv. PW17 Achuta Khanna deposed that letter Ex. PW8/A was written to him by Anil Kumar, SP, CBI, ACB regarding verification of marksheet and Certificate in the name of Vikas Sharma of the High School Examination in the year 1982 bearing Roll No. 092181, the High School Marksheet of Girdhari Lal b earing Roll no. 1427176 of the year 1996 and High School Marksheet of Sheikh Abdul Rashid bearing Roll No. 1282176 of the year 1996. After receiving the letter, he marked the details of verification regarding 1982 examination to the concerned officer in Head Quarter Allahabad and regarding the details of roll numbers of 1996 examination letter was sent to Regional Secretary, Meerut Board for verification. After verifying the same, it was established that all the above details of the roll __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 15 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:25:17 +0530 numbers not matched with the Tabulation Registers, which are the original proof of the details of the examination conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP and same are fake. The letter issued by Deputy Secretary (Verification) for verification of certificate and Marksheet of roll no. 92181 is Ex. PW17/A (D-35). The letter (D-29) regarding the verification of Roll no. 142716 and 1482176 of the year 1996 High School Examination is already Ex. PW6/A. PW17 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender.
xvi. PW18 Ajit Singh Kataria deposed that on 07.04.1998 Sh. V.S Bedi, General Manager, Centaur Hotel, Delhi called him in his office and directed him to take down the statement from Girdhari Lal as he was having some problem. Girdhari Lal submitted that he had submitted fake 10th Class certificate for getting his promotion which was procured through accused Devender Singh and he had given party to them. He asked Girdhari Lal to give the details in writing and Girdhari Lal brought a letter addressed to GM (HRD) Centaur Hotel, Delhi in his own handwriting. He took the letter along with Girdhari Lal to Sh. V.S Giri and V.S Bedi asked Girdhari Lal to sign the letter (Ex. PW18/A) and to give his staff number, section, designation etc. As per the directions of authorities, he conducted vigilance inquiry in case of Girdhari Lal and found after visiting Babu Ram Smarak, Inter-college, Muzaffarnagar, UP on 11.07.1998 that Sh. Girdhari Lal has not been issued any certificate from said College and thus, the 10th class certificate submitted by Girdhari Lal is forged one. In case of Sheikh Abdul Rashid, who had also __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 16 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:25:24 +0530 submitted 10th class marksheet was also found fake after going through the records of Babu Ram Smarak, Intercollege, Muzaffarnagar, UP. The photocopy of Vigilance Inquiry dated 16.07.1998 (D-46) is Mark 18/A. PW18 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender Singh.
xvii. PW19 Alok Kumar deposed that during the year 1999, he was posted as SI in CBI and on 10.01.1999, he was entrusted with the investigation of five cases of similar nature including the present case. He along with three Inspectors namely P. Balachandran, Yashbeer Singh and Pawan Kumar along with two independent witnesses Bapaditya Dass and Vinod Kumar besides subordinate staff and two accused Devender Kumar and Illiayk Ahmad Rizvi proceeded to Phalauda, District Meerut in order to conduct searches and investigation at the residence of one Masterjee later on identified as Vikram Singh, who was the teacher at Janta Inter College, Phalauda, Meerut. Both the accused persons pointed out the house of Sh. Vikram Singh but Vikram Singh was not available at his house. A team of Sh. Yashbir Singh, Insp along with one independent witness and Devender Singh left near the house and the other team members proceeded to the School Janta Inter-college. The principal of college revealed that Sh. Vikram Singh is not joining School since last few days. Request has been made to provide the witness from the school in order to conduct search at the house of Vikram Singh. Sh Ashok Kumar, Peon was deputed by the Principal, who was taken along with CBI team to the house of Vikram Singh and search was conducted. The search memo Ex. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 17 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:25:37 +0530 PW19/A was prepared on the basis of search conducted at the house of Vikram Singh vide which documents Ex. PW18/B were seized.
PW19 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender.
xviii. PW20 S K Bakshi deposed that after promotion of Girdhari Lal, somebody made an oral complaint that the marksheet submitted by Girdhari Lal is fake. Accordingly, they reported the matter to Vigilance Department, who submitted the report to GM after visiting the school. As per the report, the aforesaid marksheet was found to be fake and an internal inquirty was ordered by Management. After that the inquiry report was submitted by the officer and charges were proven against Girdhari Lal and the Management took back the promotion and benefits given to Girdhari Lal. Similarly, accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid also submitted the fake marksheet from same school and immediately after receiving it, it was sent to Vigilance Branch of the Hotel. It was reported that marksheet is fake and Sheikh Abdul Rashid was reverted to a lower position. The initial appointment letter dated 12.11.1982 is Ex. PW20/A1 and the promotion letter of Girdhari Lal dated 25.04.1986 Ex. PW20/A2 and promotion letter of Girdhari Lal dated 15.03.1993 Ex. PW20/A3. He correctly identified his signatures on production- cum-seizure memo dated 07.01.1999 Ex. PW14/L. He correctly identified the signatures of G.L Lamba on Ex PW20/A1. He correctly identified the signatures of P.O Thomas on Ex PW20/A2. He correctly identified the signatures of Tanvir Haziq on Ex PW20/A3. The page no. 180-181 i.e. reference no. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 18 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:25:44 +0530 CHD/PER/87973/1165 dated 30.07.1996 addressed to Girdhari Lal by S.K.Bakshi forming part of document D-18 is Ex. PW20/A4. Ex. PW20/A4 is a promotion letter and for availing said promotion, Girdhari Lal submitted a fake marksheet informing that he has qualified matriculation and his case be considered for promotion and the said information was conveyed in the form of letter to the DGM. The page no. 192-193 i.e. letter dated 16.07.1996 addressed to DGM by Girdhari Lal forming part of document D-18 is the document which he had sent for considering him for promotion as he has become eligible for the same. The page no. 182/178 i.e. letter no. CHD/PER/1431 dated 10.09.1996 addressed to Vigilance Manager, Centaur Hotel Delhi by DGM forming part of document D-18/ D-20 is Ex. PW20/A5 (Colly) which is a letter sent by him to Vigilance Manager for investigation from School Authorities, as somebody had informed him that the marksheet submitted by Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid were fake. A report was received from Vigilance (manager) to the General Manager stating that during the relevant period, the Institution in question was not recognized for conducting the private examination. The page no. 186 i.e. Letter no. CHD/AGM/87973/591 dated 09/26.12.1996 addressed to Girdhari Lal by AGM forming part of document D-18 is Ex.
PW20/A6. He correctly identified the signature of Tanvi Haziq, the then AGM on the document Ex. PW20/A6. Page no. 202- 204 i.e. letter no. CHD/AGM/87973/590 dated 05.12.1996 addressed to Girdhari Lal by AGM forming part of document D-18 is Ex. PW20/A7. He correctly identified the signature of Tanvi Haziq, the then AGM on the document Ex. PW20/A7. The page no. 230-231 i.e. letter no. CHD/AGM/87973/452 dated __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 19 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:25:51 +0530 29.08.1997 addressed to Girdhari Lal by AGM forming part of document D-18 is Ex. PW20/A8. He correctly identified the signature of Tanvi Haziq, the then AGM on the document Ex.
PW20/A8.
PW20 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender and he deposed that it is not on record who was the complainant in the present case. The complaint was received verbally by the Administration of Centaur Hotel, Delhi. It is correct that accused Devender Singh was president of Workman Union of Centaur Hotel on some occasion. It is correct that accused Devender Singh had no say in the Selection Committee. Selection Committee consists of Member of Management and not from the Union. It is correct that no internal inquiry was being conducted against accused Devender Singh prior to his arrest.
xix. PW21 Bijay Kumar Pradhan deposed that on 07.01.1999, he was endorsed a search warrant for conducting search at the house of Girdharil Lal at Mangla Puri, Delhi. Accordingly, he along with two independent witnesses and CBI team members reached the house of Girdhari Lal, search was conducted and relevant documents namely original marksheet, TC and other documents relating to Girdhari Lal were seized and taken into possession vide search cum seizure memo already Ex. PW14/B (D-4). He correctly identified the documents seized by him which are already Ex. PW14/C, PW14/D, PW14/E and PW14/F. He correctly identified document D-39 i.e. High School Marksheet bearing No. 0394519 in the name of Girdhari Lal Ex PW21/A. After the search, he visited Centaur Hotel and __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 20 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:25:58 +0530 collected certain documents from DGM, Centaur Hotel vide production and seizure memo dated 07.01.1999 already Ex. PW14/L (D-17). He correctly identified the personal file of Girdhari Lal seized by him Ex. PW21/B (Colly) (1-231 pages). He correctly identified the personal file of Sheikh Abdul Rashid seized by him Ex. PW21/C (Colly) (1-224 pages). He correctly identified the personal file of Devender Singh seized by him Ex. PW21/D (Colly) (1-315 pages).
PW21 was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender Singh and he deposed that it is correct that he was not the part of investigating team. It is correct that he cannot identify accused Devender Singh. It is correct that he did not see any document from accused Devender Singh. It is correct that no document with respect to accused Devender Singh was seized from accused Girdhari Lal. It is correct that he seized the personal file of accused Devender Singh from the office of DGM, Centaur Hotel, Delhi.
xx. PW22 Harish Kumar deposed that Girdhari Lal had furnished a 10th certificate on the basis of which he was promoted and later on, the certificate was found to be forged during departmental inquiry. Girdhari Lal was accordingly reverted to the lower post. Similarly, Sheikh Abdul Rashid was promoted on the basis of 10th certificate which was later on found to be forged during Departmental inquiry and accordingly, he too was reverted to the lower post. Accused Devender Singh had joined the Hotel along with him on 01.12.1982 as Timekeeper. Accused Devender Singh has been the President and Secretary of the Union at different times. During the course of employment, the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 21 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:26:05 +0530 accused Devender Singh was once censured and at one time, his increment was stopped but he was not aware of the allegations against accused Devender Singh. The censure letter from General Manager, Centaur Hotel, Delhi to accused Devender Singh dated 13.06.1991 part of D-45 is Ex. PW22/A. He identified the signature of accused Devender Singh on page no. 186, 4 and 22 of document D-5 which are Ex. PW22/B, PW22/C and PW22/D (Colly) (4 pages). He correctly identified the accused in the court. He did not remember whether accused Devender Singh was involved in the cases pertaining to procurement fake matriculation certificate in the name of Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid.
PW22 is duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender.
xxi. PW23 Radhey Shyam deposed that in the year 2000, he visited CBI office for handing over the documents to the IO Alok Kumar in some other case. At that time, he was approached by IO Shobha Dutta to become a witness in this case. The pages from S-83 to S-101 document D-37 were written by Devender Singh in his presence voluntarily and without any pressure and same are Ex. PW23/A (Colly) (19 Pages). He correctly identified the accused in the court.
PW23 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Devender and he deposed that IO Shobha Dutta had asked him to act as a witness in this case orally. He had not obtained any instructions/permission from his Department for acting as a witness in this case. It is correct that he never participated in investigation of this case after that. It is correct __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 22 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 Digitally signed by CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:26:14 +0530 that IO Shobha Dutta and higher officials had never given any direction to him in writing. It is correct that he is not aware of the total number of accused persons in the present case.
xxii. PW24 Sukhpal Singh deposed that from 31.03.1990 to 30.06.2023, he worked as Principal in Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar, UP. He denied his signatures on document D-12 (Ex. PW7/F) i.e. photocopies of Scholar Register and transfer form bearing Regn. no. 3781 in the name of Ashok Kumar and deposed that the said record is in the name of Rajbir and not Ashok Kumar. He denied his signatures and stamp on document D-40 i.e. High School Marksheet bearing no. 0319459 in the name of Sheikh Abdul Rashid which is Ex. PW24/B. He denied his signatures and stamp on document D-39 (Ex. PW21/A) i.e. High School Marksheet bearing no. 0394519 in the name of Girdhari Lal. He denied his signatures and stamp on document D-41 i.e. Inter College Marksheet bearing no. 092161 in the name of Vikas Sharma which is Ex. PW24/C. He always used Hindi Stamp since 1990 when he was working as Principal. Generally, they only put the stamped once on any document whereas Ex. PW7/F was stamped twice. He identified his signatures on Ex. PW7/D, Ex. PW14/M, Ex. PW7/E, Document D-30 i.e. letter addressed to S.K. Vij written by Sh. S.P Singh dated 31.10.1996 which is Ex. PW24/D, D-38 i.e. his specimen handwriting and signatures Ex. PW24/E (Colly) (9 pages).
PW24 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused Devender Singh and deposed that it is correct that accused Devender Singh has nothing to do with any of the documents shown to him in the court. It is correct that he had never seen __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 23 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:26:21 +0530 accused Devender and seen him first time in the court. It is correct that accused Devender never accompanied with the IO whenever IO came to his school for investigation.
STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
12. After examination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. Sr. PP on 02.12.2024. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the present case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
13. Ld. counsel for the accused has moved an application under Section 353 BNSS seeking permission to examine the accused as a witness, besides examining two other witnesses i.e. Visham Mohan and Ram Avtar Garg. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW1, Sh. Bishen Mohan as DW2 and Sh. Ram Avtar Garg as DW3.
i. DW1 Devender Singh deposed that in the year 1997, two employees of Centuar Hotel namely Surender Duggal and Gaidhar Swain lodged a complaint with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karanpura (ALC) regarding wrongful obtaining of promotion by Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid on the basis of forged documents. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Manager of Centuar Hotel Sh. S.K. Vij against Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid regarding the forged documents/certificates. After completing the enquiry, S.K. Vij __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 24 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:26:28 +0530 submitted a report to the management. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid and they were demoted and proceedings against them was closed. In the year 1998, election of Union was to take place for the year 1998-2000. At that time, he used to look after the attendance of the officials of the Hotel. When the elections became due, Sh. V.S. Bedi suspended him without any charges on account of mistake in recording attendance of five officials. He got elected as President of the Union and the result was conveyed by the Union to the General Manager(O) vide letter dated 07.04.1998 alongwith report of returning officer/Election Commissioner Mark DW1/A (3 pages). After taking the charge as President, he saw the Union file and found that several complaints against the officers of the Management written to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and Chairman, Air India and all those letters bore his forged signatures. In one of the letter, allegations were leveled against Tanvir Haziq that in his previous employment with Rajdoot Hotel, he was arrested in sex raid for which an FIR was also registered. The copy of FIR is Mark DW1/B(7 pages). This fact was concealed by Tanvir Haziq in his application form Mark DW1/C(4 pages) and in his attestation form Mark DW1/D (4 pages). Similarly, there was complaint against V.S. Bedi that he was involved in corruption and that he had secured the employment on the basis of a forged SC Certificate. For this, letters were also written by SC/ST employees Welfare Association to the National Commission for SC/ST Mark DW1/E(7 pages). Similarly, there was complaint against Anil Kalia, General Manager (Operations) on the allegations that he had extended tender of Deep Travels more __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 25 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date:
2025.11.29
15:26:35
+0530
than thrice for which enquiry was conducted by the CBI against him. Similarly, there was allegation against Rajesh Kashyap regarding unhygienic conditions and quality of fish and mutton. Allegation were also levelled against S.K.Vij, Vigilance Manager for obtaining of LTC and Ajeet Singh Kataria regarding theft in previous office of BSF. There was also complaint against Harish Kumar, Assistant Personeel Officer on the allegations that he had furnished a forged master if Social Work Certificate to obtain promotion. All the said persons became hostile to him due to these complaints. In October, 1998, SHO PS Mahipalpur came to the hotel along with an anonymous complaint. The allegations in the said complaint was that one Devender Singh, who is President of the Union, Centuar Hotel is involved in securing jobs and promotions of the employees on the basis of forged certificates. Along with complaint, copies of certificates of several employees namely Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Ashok Kumar, Rekha Kashyap and Ramphal Yadav. He took the SHO to the office of General manager Anil Kalia. Anil Kalia sent him out of the room and called Harish Kumar inside. Anil Kalia gave a letter signed by him to the SHO that at present, the management was not having any complaint against Devender Singh and in case any complaint is lodged in future, the management shall give its information. From the last week of November 1998 till first week of December 1998, this incident was reported in three newspapers. He gave a counter of this which was published by Indian express in Hindi version of the newspaper. On 07.01.1999, the CBI carried out raid at his premises. The CBI officer was getting the same file which the SHO PS Mahipalpur was carrying. From his residence, he was __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 26 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:26:43 +0530 taken to the hotel. He was asked to produce the key of locker no. 1133. The key was also produced from ASO L.N.Napoleon. The locker was opened. There was the union file, his suspension enquiry file, a towel and his uniform. Thereafter he was taken to CBI office. The slip mark PW7/C was recovered by the CBI from residence of Abdul Rashid, however it was planted on him by the CBI. During police custody, he was forced to do another map on the basis of Mark PW7/C for the purpose of comparison. All this was done at the direction of DIG Suri. He was not called for joining the investigation thereafter and chargesheet was filed against him. In the year 2001-02, the management conducted enquiry against him and after departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from the service. Later on, he came to know that to appoint Mali, panel was constituted of which Shri VK Chopra and Shri SK Bakshi were a part. He was chargesheeted by CBI for selection of one of the Mali Ashok Kumar. In fact, one another Mali Kanwar Singh was selected on the basis of forged certificate by the said selection panel.
DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld APP for CBI and deposed that he knows Sunil Soni. He was working in the Centuar Hotel as Front Office Cashier. He did not know that accused Ashok Kumar, the brother of accused Sunil Soni. He had not lodged any complaint with the police or with any other authority when he saw that his signatures had been forged on several complaints against officers of the management. He cannot say as to why the senior officers of the company became hostile to him despite the fact that he had informed them that he had not lost or signed any complaint against any of them. He had not lodged any complaint against any officer of the CBI before __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 27 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:26:50 +0530 the police, court or any other authority when he was forced to draw another map on the basis of document Mark PW7/C. He had not lodged any complaint with any authority when he became aware that one Mali Kanwar Singh was selected by the selection committee on the basis of forged certificate.
ii. DW2 Bishen Mohan deposed that he was appointed as SHO PS Mahipalpur on 08.08.1998. In the year 1998, one anonymous complaint was sent to PS Mahipalpur from police headquarter. The said complaint pertains to the offence of cheating being committed by the union employees of Centuar Hotel by giving employment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. He had himself enquired into the complaint. For the purpose of enquiry, he had visited Centuar Hotel and there he met Shri Anil Kalia and Shri Chetan Kak and showed him the complaint. Sh. Anil Kalia called several office bearers of the Union. One such person was Mr Yadav. He did not remember the name of the other persons. He remembered Mr. Yadav as he used to come to the police station with respect to the disputes of the union. Mr. Yadav told him that no complaint was received by them and none of the office bearers of the union was involved in such activities. Shri Chetan Kak assured him that they will enquire into the matter and will file a complaint with the police station, if need arises. Shri Chetan kak give him a written assurance in this regard.
DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI and deposed that no further enquiry except as mentioned above was conducted as the GM had stated that they will conduct an enquiry themselves and lodged a complaint, if so required. He had not __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 28 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 Digitally signed CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:26:58 +0530 made any general diary entry before proceeding to the Centuar hotel. He had prepared a report and had sent it along with the letter of Shri Anil Kalia to the police headquarters. The said report prepared by him does not form part of the record. He is not having the copy of the said report or any other relevant document pertaining to the present matter with him. CBI did not make any enquiry from him in this respect. He cannot say how many complaints were received at PS MahipalPur from August 1998 to December 1998.
iii. DW3 Ram Avtar Garg deposed that he had joined Centuar hotel as a timekeeper on 01.12.1982. Accused Devender Singh had also joined during the same time period at the post of typist. One Mr SK Vij, who was the security manager had filed a false claim for LTC and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was terminated. In the year 1998, an enquiry was conducted against accused Devender Singh at Centuar hotel on the allegations of wrongful typing of deduction statements and he was a witness in that enquiry and he had found some wrong entries in the list type by accused Devender Singh. The said wrong entries might be due to typing error. Accused Devender Singh was issued a chargesheet but thereafter no enquiry was conducted by the management and thus, no punishment was awarded to accused Devender Singh. The conduct of Devender Singh in the hotel was satisfactory and there was no complaint against him. He cannot say the management used to put pressure on accused Devender Singh being the President of the union.
DW3 was duly cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 29 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:27:05 +0530 Thereafter, Ld. defence counsel closed the defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Ld. counsel for the accused.
15. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI submitted that the facts of the present case is that the present case was registered by CBI on 31.12.1998 on source information on the allegation that fake educational certificates were used for getting employment/promotion in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi. Accused Devender Singh had conspired with Sh. Girdhari Lal and other accused persons and procured fake marksheet in the name of accused Girdhari Lal by paying Rs.4,000/- to the agent. This fake certificate was utilized by accused Girdhari Lal. It is further argued that investigation revealed that accused Devender Singh was working as Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Time Keeper in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi. He was also the President of Employees Union of the Hotel. Searches were conducted at the residential and official premises of accused Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Devender Singh and Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma @ Miya Ji and various incriminating documents were recovered from these accused persons. It is further argued that during investigation, disclosure statement of accused Devender Singh was also recorded. Specimen signatures of the accused persons/suspects/witnesses were obtained and GEQD report was also obtained from CFSL on the questioned and specimen documents. Before the registration of FIR, accused __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 30 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:27:12 +0530 Girdhari Lal had written a letter to GM, Centaur Hotel in which he had explained the role of accused Devender Singh in obtaining fake educational certificate in his name. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against accused Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Devender Singh and Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma @ Miya Ji u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 & 511 of IPC. It has been further argued that in order to prove his case, the prosecution had examined 24 witnesses. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Smt. Kusum Bhatnagar (PW6) and Sh. Harish Kumar (PW22) have turned hostile but they have also supported the prosecution case. The document D-2 i.e. search at house of accused Devender Singh on 07.01.1999 on the basis of search warrant, has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW 2/B. Witness of the search Sh. O. Rajesh has been examined as PW2 & defence did not cross examine this witness. During the search at house of Devender Singh, copy of the fake certificate of accused Girdhari Lal bearing No.0394519 dated 21.06.1996 issued from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali was recovered which is D-3 (Ex.PW2/C). The document D-4 i.e. search at house of accused Girdhari Lal on 07.01.1999 on the basis of search warrant, has been exhibited as Ex.PW14/B. DSP Shobha Dutta has been examined as PW14. In the cross examination, the emphasis of the defence was only on the point that no fake marksheet of accused Devender Singh was recovered. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that no fake marksheet in the name of accused Devender Singh has been found/recovered. During the search at house of accused Girdhari Lal, original fake certificate of accused Girdhari Lal bearing No.0394519 dated __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 31 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:27:20 +0530 21.06.1996 issued from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali was recovered which is D-39 (Ex.PW21/A). On the original fake certificate, Q3 was Marked on the date and Q4 was marked on the questioned signatures. Letter dated 01.05.1996 (D-6, Exhibit PW14/E) written by accused Girdhari Lal to Centaur Hotel for his promotion was also recovered. Another letter (D-7, Ex.PW14/F) of Centaur Hotel confirming promotion of accused Girdhari Lal was recovered. The document D-8 i.e. search at house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid on 07.01.1999 on the basis of search warrant, has been exhibited as Ex.PW7/A. Witnesses of this search i.e. Sh. Charan Singh (PW10) and Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW11) have been examined. Sh. Om Prakash, Inspr. CBI has also been examined as PW7 regarding this search. All the three witnesses have supported the prosecution case in the chief examination and in the cross-examination. During the search at house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid, original fake marksheet of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid bearing No.0319459 dated 21.06.1996 issued from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali was recovered which is D-40 (Ex.PW24/B). On this original fake marksheet, Q5 was marked on the questioned dated and Q6 was marked on the questioned signatures. An original handmade map showing residence of one person at Jahangir Puri was also recovered from this search which is D-37. This map is later proved to be made in the handwriting of accused Devender Singh. The portion in this note was marked as Q-12. Specimen of accused Devender Singh was obtained during the investigation on 27.04.2000 by the IO which is S-83 to S-101 (Ex.PW23/A colly) (Part of D-37). The GEQD report dated 05.09.2000 has been proved by Dr. S.C. Mittal (PW15) and the report is __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 32 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:27:27 +0530 exhibited as Ex.PW15/A. The GEQD confirmed that Sh. Devender Singh had written Q-12. During the investigation, the specimen signature of Sh. Sukhpal Singh, Principal of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali was also obtained as S-63 to S-72 (Ex.PW21/A colly). GEQD has also confirmed that questioned signature Q-2, Q-4, Q-6, Q-8, Q-10 and Q-11 are not matched with specimen signatures and admitted signatures of Sh. Sukhpal Singh. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Principal of Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali has been examined as PW24 as he categorically deposed before the court that the questioned signatures on the mark sheets issued in the name of his college are not his signatures. He also admitted his specimen given to the CBI. He had also proved his letter written to Sh. S.K. Vij, Vigilance Manager, Centaur Hotel (Ex.PW24/D) (Part of D-30) in which he conveyed to the hotel that Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali was not a centre for private candidates in the year 1995 and 1996. He also conveyed that marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal and accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid were not issued by his college and this was a fraud. In his cross examination, the line of questioning of the defence was regarding involvement of accused Devender Singh in preparing the fake documents which he denied. A letter written by Sh. Sukhpal Singh (D-25, Exhibit PW 7/D) has been proved. Another letter of Sh. Sukhpal Singh dated 15.11.1999 (Exhibit PW 7/E) has been proved in which he informed that his college was not authorised to entertain private candidates in the year 1996. Sh. Ajit Singh Kataria, Vigilance Manager, Centaur Hotel has been examined as PW18 who has recorded the statement of Sh. Girdhari Lal on 07.04.1998 while conducting an enquiry. He has proved the letter of Sh. Girdhari __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 33 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 Digitally signed CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:27:35 +0530 Lal written to GM (HRD), Centaur Hotel as Ex.PW18/A (D-32). In this letter, Girdhari Lal had confessed that Sh. Devender Singh took him on his scooter to Jahangir Puri and they met there with a tout. Accused Girdhari Lal had paid Rs.4,000/- to the tout. Thereafter, Sh. Devender Singh got signature of Sh. Girdhari Lal on a letter on 16.07.1996 and a certificate was issued. The document D-11 i.e. search at house of accused Illiyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma on 07.01.1999 on the basis of authorization u/s 165 CrPC, has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Sh. R. S. Bedi, Insp, CBI has been examined as PW1 and defence did not cross examine this witness. Witness of the search, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arya has also been examined as PW3 and defence closed his opportunity of cross-examination without doing the cross. It is clear from deposition of PW1 that accused Illiyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma had changed his address from Jahangirpuri to Karolbagh. During the search at house of Sh. Illiyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma, original fake certificate and marksheet of Sh. Vikas Sharma issued from Babu Singh Smarak Inter College, Pamnawali were recovered which are D-41 & D-42 (Ex.PW24/C). Copy of the fake certificate of Sh. Ashok Kumar bearing no. 3781 was also recovered in the search which was proved as Exhibit PW 7/F (D-12). The document D-16 i.e. search of lockers of accused Devender Singh, Girdhari Lal and Sheikh Abdul Rashid on 07.01.1999 has been exhibited as Ex.PW12/A. Witnesses of the search Sh. Dinesh Kumar Upreti and Sh. Mohd Ayub Farooqui have been examined as PW12 & PW16. From the locker No.1133 of accused Devender Singh, various applications in the name of applicants for seeking job in Centaur Hotel alongwith their biodata and __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 34 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:29:18 +0530 educational certificates etc. were also recovered. It has been further argued that during the investigation, accused Devender Singh has made a disclosure statement to the IO on 09.01.1999 before the independent witness. This statement has been proved by the independent witness Sh. Sanjay Kandpal (PW9) as Ex.PW9/A (D-22). In this disclosure, accused Devender Singh told to the IO that he could identify "Master Ji". He had met Master Ji once during his visit to his house at Phalaunda alongwith accused Illiyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma for getting fake certificate. A disclosure statement of accused Illiyak Ahmed Rizwi on 09.01.1999 was also recorded in which he disclosed the same facts as disclosed by accused Devender Singh. The disclosure statement of accused Illyak Ahmed Rizwi has been proved as Exhibit PW 9/B (D-23). Sh. Alok Kumar, SI, CBI has been examined as PW19 who has proved the search conducted at house of Sh. Vikram Singh @ Master Ji on identification of accused Devender Singh. The documents recovered from the search of house of Vikram Singh were not relied upon in the present case. Sh. Vikram Singh was made an accused in a parallel case pending before this court i.e. RC-64(A)/1998, CBI Vs Ashok Kumar. The witnesses of specimen signatures of Sh. Sukhpal Singh and of accused Devender Singh have been examined as PW13 & PW23 respectively. Ms. Achula Khanna, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksh Parisad, Allahabad proved the fact that marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal, Sheikh Abdul Rashid and Vikas Sharma were fake. Sh. S.K. Bakshi, DGM, Centaur Hotel has proved personal file of accused Girdhari Lal as Exhibit PW 21/B Colly (D-18). Personal file of accused Devender Singh has been proved as Exhibit PW __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 35 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:29:24 +0530 21/D Colly (D-45). Personal file of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid has been proved as Exhibit PW 21/C Colly (D-20). FIR and chargesheet were proved by the IO (PW14). It has been further argued that the whole case is based on the searches, recovery of fake certificate, use of fake certificate, disclosure statement, official record of the college and UP Intermediate Board etc. Prosecution has proved the searches/seizures and recoveries. It is an admitted case that certificates are forged and these have been used. The only surviving accused i.e. Devender Singh was instrumental in procuring these fake certificates. He was working at the relevant time in Centaur Hotel and he was also a Union President. Recovery of copy of fake certificate of accused Girdhari Lal from the house of accused Devender Singh and its further connection with the search at house of accused Girdhari Lal and recovery of the map in the handwriting of accused Devender Singh from the house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid and map connected with accused Iliyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma clearly proved his involvement in the fake certificate racket. The role of accused Devender Singh further strengthened from the confessional letter of accused Girdhari Lal. His further involvement is also proved by his own disclosure statement on which the house of Sh. Vikram Singh was raided. Accused Iliyak Ahmad Rizvi @ Vikas Sharma has already pleaded guilty on 02.06.2016. The confession of a co-accused in a joint trial also goes against the present accused. It has been further argued that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt qua surviving accused Devender Singh.
Ld. Sr.PP for CBI relied upon certain judgments which are as follows:-
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 36 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.11.29 15:29:31 +0530
(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Lal Vs State of Hi-
machal Pradesh" AIR 2018 Supreme Court 4616 has held at para 13 that an extra judicial confession can be relied upon, if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witness who appears to be unbiased and not inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful state- ment to the accused. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 14 observed that extra judicial confession need not in all cases be corroborated.
In the present case, although the confession was made by Sh. Girdhari Lal who had expired on 12.07.2012 but it is a valuable piece of evidence because it has been made 8 months prior to the FIR and it fulfills all the parameters as described by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Badri Rai and Anr. Vs State of Bihar" 1958 AIR 953 SC held that the acts and statements made by a conspirator are admissible not only against the maker of the statement but also against the other conspirator. A conspiracy is hatched in se- crecy and executed in darkness. Therefore, it is not fea- sible for the prosecution to connect each isolated Act or statement of one accused with the acts or statements of the other.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 37 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:29:37 +0530
(iii) In "Mehboob Ali and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan", 2016 (14) SCC 640, fake currency notes were recov- ered from the possession of an accused and on the dis- closure of that accused, further persons were arrested in whose possession more fake currency notes were recov- ered. In that way, a chain of the accused person was made. Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 15 that any fact which was not in the knowledge of the Police but came in the knowledge from the disclosure of the ac- cused, is a fact admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
(iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "G. Parshwanath Vs State of Karnataka" 2010 (8) SCC 593 held at para 11 that the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their rela- tion to the facts of the particular case. The court there- after has to consider the effect of proved facts. A dis- tinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of fact to be drawn from them on the other. It is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence ad- duced and some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. It is not expected from the prose- cution to exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused.
16. Ld. defence counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the present case was registered on the basis of source information __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 38 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:29:43 +0530 that a network of agents operating in Centaur Hotel, New Delhi was active in procuring forged and fabricated educational certificates which were used for getting employment in Centaur Hotel. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there is no writing complaint for registration of an FIR, no 100 number call was made for registration of present FIR and it was anonymous complaint based on unreliable sources. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that initially an anonymous complaint was received by DW2/SHO, PS Mahipal Pur from Police Headquarter and on said complaint, DW2 visited Centaur Hotel for the purpose of enquiry and there Sh. Chetan Kak assured DW2 that firstly they will enquire into the matter and would file complaint with the police station if required for registration of FIR. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Devender Singh was appointed in Centaur Hotel as Personal Assistant in the year 1992 and was elected as President of Union from 1994 to 1996. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that Centaur Hotel has separate recruitment branch/selection committee/ appointment committee and accused Devender Singh had no concerned with said recruitment branch/selection committee/ appointment committee. The said fact is admitted by PW20 during his cross examination that accused Devender Singh had no say in the Selection Committee and Selection Committee consists of member of management and not from the Union. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the Centaur Hotel used to appoint employees enrolled in Employment Exchange and not randomly. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Girdhari Lal against whom proceedings have been abated wrote a letter to GM (HRD), Centaur Hotel dated __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 39 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:29:49 +0530 07.04.1998 mentioning that accused Devender Singh took him to accused Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi @Vikas Sharma @ Miyanji (already pleaded guilty) at Jahangir Puri to whom accused Girdhari Lal gave Rs. 4,000/- and accused Miyanji gave assurance that certificate will be given within few days. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that during investigation "One hand drawn Map" (Mark PW7/L) showing the address of one Miyanji Tent Wala, Jahangir Puri and mark sheet (Ex. PW21/A) of roll no. 1482176 of High School Examination 1996 of Babu Singh Samarak Inter College Muzaffar Nagar, UP were recovered from the house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid (already abated). It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that during the search of house of accused Devender Singh, one photocopy of forged mark sheet of High School of accused Girdhari Lal was recovered. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Girdhari Lal joined as Plumber in Centaur Hotel on 22.12.1982 and got promoted to General Mechanic Plumber, Grade-I in the year 1986 and later on promoted as Junior Supervisor, General Mechanic Plumber in the year 1996, which was withdrawn on the basis of Vigilance Report dated 05.11.1996 and departmental proceedings against him. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that no written complaint has been given by Centaur Hotel at any point of time to any police station. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that total 8 charge sheets were filed on the source information by the CBI and six charge sheets have already been closed and accused Devender Singh was not even made accused in those 6 cases. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that PW6 Sh. Kusum Bhatnagar turned hostile during his examination by the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 40 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:35:09 +0530 prosecution. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused Devender Singh had no knowledge and had no concern with the search made at the house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that during search of house of accused Devender Singh, photocopies of certificates of Ramphal Yadav, Rekha Kashyap, Girdhari Lal, Dewan Singh, Tek Bahadur, Dinesh Jitender Singh and Ravinder Singh were recovered but accused Devender Singh has no concern for taking benefits from their forged certificates or their promotions. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that disclosure statement of accused Devender Singh was taken forcibly during custody. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that Mark PW7/L i.e. hand drawn map of accused Devender Singh do not mention any date or year of its preparation and moreover, the name or address of the addressee or sender is also not found mentioned. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that PW24 duly admitted during his cross examination that accused Devender Singh has nothing to do with any of the documents i.e. forged and fabricated mark sheets and also admitted that he had never seen accused Devender Singh before seeing him first time in the court. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that no internal enquiry was ever conducted by Centaur Hotel against accused Devender Singh prior to his arrest and prosecution has failed to explain as to why no internal enquiry was conducted. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that it is very strange to note that no accused persons in all the connected cases were removed from the service after being found that they have forged the certificates and they were only demoted on the said ground. It is further argued by Ld. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 41 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:35:15 +0530 Defence counsel that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he used to raise points of welfare of employees to Management Committee and hence Management Committee were against him and without any reason, his name was falsely implicated in the present case only just to remove him from service and to spoil his life. Ld. Counsel for defence relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'C. Kamalakkannam vs. State of Tamil Nadu' and 'Manoj Kumar Soni vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' and judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 'L.S. Ken vs. State of M.P through P. S. Lokayukt' and 'Asha Dwivedi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh'.
17. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the written submissions and judgments filed on record by the Ld. counsels for the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18. At the outset, it may be noted that the highest case of the prosecution as against the accused Devender Singh is that incriminating documents against accused Devender Singh were recovered i.e. the hand-made map of the route to the house of accused Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi @ Miyaji, recovered from the house of accused Sheikh Abdul Rashid which is found in the handwriting of accused Devender Singh as confirmed by CFSL report Ex. PW15/A and the photocopy of fake and forged marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal was recovered from the house of accused Devender Singh himself. The letter Ex.PW18/A __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 42 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:35:26 +0530 written by accused Girdhari Lal to GM(HRD) of Centuar Hotel mentioning that the accused Devender Singh had procured the forged and fabricated 10th class marksheet for the accused Girdhari Lal for Rs.4,000/- through Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi@Miyaji. The said fact is confirmed by the report of CFSL that the marksheet of the accused Girdhari Lal does not bears the signature of the then Prinicipal, Sh. Sukhpal Singh and the said fact is also confirmed by Sh. Sukhpal Singh during his deposition as PW24 before the court. The disclosure statement given by the accused Devender Singh.
19. In the present case, the allegations against the accused Devender Singh is that he conspired in procuring fake, forged and fabricated 10th class Marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal for securing promotion as Jr. Supervisor General Mechanic (Plumber). First and foremost, the letter Ex PW18/A written by accused Girdhari Lal to GM (HRD), Centuar Hotel mentioning all the details that how he procured the fake, forged and fabricated certificate through accused Devender Singh, however, accused Girdhari Lal was never examined by the prosecution as a witness to prove the said letter. The prosecution has examined PW18 to prove the said letter, however, the prosecution is relying on this document as an extra-judicial confession of the accused Girdhari Lal implicating himself and accused Devender Singh.
20. The term 'confession' is nowhere defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference can be taken from the definition of admission in section 17 of Indian Evidence Act. The essence of confession can be found in different statutes but Section 24 to __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 43 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:35:33 +0530 30 of Evidence Act and section 162 to 164 of Cr.P.C. specifically deals with a confession. Confessions are more specific and comprehensive than admissions, as they involve an admission of guilt for a particular crime.
21. The Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swamy Vs. Emperor AIR 1939 P. C. 47, held that-
"A confession must either be admitted in the context of any offence or in relation with any substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal proceedings. And an admission of serious wrongdoing, even conclusively incriminating fact is not itself a confession.
No statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms of offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession".
22. In Palvinder Singh V. State of Punjab,1953 SCJ 545, the Supreme Court uplifted the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swamy case and substantiated their arguments with two reasons-
"Firstly, the definition of confession only comes to exist when the statements conferring the admission that he is either guilty of any offence or the admission is probating all the facts which constitute the offence.
Secondly, when the statement has different qualities and contains such a mixture of confessional statements which conclude to the acquittal of the person making the confession, then such statements cannot be considered as a confession."
23. Extra-Judicial confessions are confessions when the confession is made at any place other than Court, such confession is called as extrajudicial confession. A person expressing the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 44 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:38:35 +0530 guilt of the offence he committed to any private person like any friend or his related persons than such commission of a crime will cover the aspects of extrajudicial confession. Though both judicial and extrajudicial confession can be accepted in the Court but both have different evidentiary value or different probative value so as to establish any fact. What makes the extra-judicial confession different from judicial confession is that extrajudicial confession can be made to any private person which also includes a judicial officer in his private capacity.
24. In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR (1947) Privy Council 67, Privy Council held that extra-judicial confessions are admissible if they are voluntary, true, and reliable.
25. In Balwinder Singh v. State, 1996 AIR 607, Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession, Court must check for the credibility of the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the Court to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so trustworthy, then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the guilt of accused.
26. In Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 Supreme Court held that-
Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of evidence by itself and the court must examine such statements efficiently.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 45 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:38:41 +0530 Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person's own will and such statements must be true.
The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly increases when it is supported by other such evidence.
The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other fact in issue is proven in the judicial proceedings.
27. In State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258, Supreme Court held that an extra-judicial confession's value only increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of the case otherwise the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession made by him.
28. In general, confession is a statement which is self- incriminating. However, there can be cases where confessions can inculpate the co-accused. When there are more than one accused in a case and they are jointly prosecuted for the same offence, and when any of them confesses any statements against himself in such a way that he may be proved guilty of that offence then the court on such belief may prosecute other accused also who are jointly persecuted in the same offence. Confessions that incriminate only the co-accused is not valid. In such case, it cannot be treated as confession at all as it failed the basic test of admission of guilt. Co-accused may collude to implicate each other falsely, leading to concerns about the credibility of such confessions. Confession which includes the proof of guilt of accused. In such cases, Court should be highly __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 46 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:38:47 +0530 cautious as there is every chance that an accused may be falsely implicated. However, if the other evidence corroborated with the confession is satisfactorily proved, it can be considered without any hesitation by the Court.
29. Section 30 provides the legal framework for the admissibility of co-accused confessions. It allows the confession of one co-accused to be used against another co-accused if-
1. Confession is made while the co-accused is jointly tried.
2. Confession must implicate both the co-accused, not just the maker of the confession.
3. Confession must be voluntary and truthful.
30. In Bhuboni Sahu v. King, (1949) 51 BOMLR 955, the Privy Council held that-
" When more persons than one am being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession."
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana,(2011) 10 SCC 165, held that the confessions made by the co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and they cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, the confession made by the co- accused can only be used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out by other probative evidence.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 47 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedMAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:39:18 +0530
32. It is specifically held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that conviction cannot be solely based on the extra judicial confession, it cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only for the corroborative purpose. If there are sufficient material on record to convict the accused but there is slight hitch to convict the accused, in that case Extra-judicial can be used by the courts as a link/chain to convict the accused with extra assurance, therefore, the extra-judicial confession is make- weight evidence.
33. Furthermore, in the said letter it is specifically mentioned that accused Devender Singh took accused Girdhari Lal to the accused Illiayk Ahmed Rizvi on his scooter, then where and when the occasion arises to make the hand written map Mark PW7/L which is in the handwriting of the accused Devender Singh as confirmed by CFSL Report Ex. PW15/A. The prosecution failed to lead any evidence as to why the said hand written map was prepared by accused Devender Singh and for what purpose and for whom the said map was prepared and this hand written map nowhere shows that same has been made to obtain forged and fabricated certificate of 8th class of accused Devender Singh.
34. The recovery of photocopy of forged marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal nowhere shows that the accused Devender Singh had conspired in forging the 10th class marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal. It is admitted fact that the accused Devender Singh is the President of the Union of Centuar Hotel and recovery of photocopy of marksheet of any employee from the House of the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 48 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:39:25 +0530 President of the Union is not so strange as the President might have kept the same for some purpose/work in the Hotel.
35. None of the witness examined by the prosecution deposed directly or indirectly regarding the involvement of the accused Devender Singh in forging the marksheet of the accused Girdhari Lal or any other accused. The prosecution failed to show any benefit monetary or of any other kind, if any, accrued to the accused Devender Singh in the present case. Two witnesses PW6 and PW22 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is also admitted fact that the accused Devender Singh has no say in the selection of any of the employee of the Centuar Hotel and the said fact is confirmed by the prosecution witness PW20 and all the employees of the Hotel are appointed through employment exchanges and no private person is directly appointed as employee in the Hotel. No written complaint has ever been made by the Hotel against any of the accused persons and it is also very strange that despite knowing the fact that some of the accused persons in the present case and other connected cases had forged the marksheets to obtain employment and to secure promotion, none of the accused persons was terminated from the service and only they were demoted from their post as a punishment.
36. In the decision in Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 41 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 860 , this Court observed and held thus : (SCC p. 44, paras 5-6) "5. ... But in a case based on circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the manner of occurrence is known to the persons connected with the victim. The first information report is lodged only disclosing the offence, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 49 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:39:32 +0530 leaving to the investigating agency to find out the offender.
6. It is said that men lie but circumstances do not. Under the circumstances prevailing in the society today, it is not true in many cases. Sometimes the circumstances which are sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances. In countries having sophisticated modes of investigation, every trace left behind by the culprit can be followed and pursued immediately. Unfortunately, it is not available in many parts of this country. That is why courts have insisted (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established; (ii) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused."
37. Further it was held therein as under: (Sarbir Singh case [Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 41 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 860] , SCC p. 45, para 7) "7. ... It has been impressed that suspicion and conjecture should not take the place of legal proof. It is true that the chain of events proved by the prosecution must show that within all human probability the offence has been committed by the accused, but the court is expected to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts along with the motive suggested by the prosecution which induced the accused to follow a particular path. The existence of a motive is often an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in cases depending on circumstantial evidence."
38. In Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1998) 5 SCC 699 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1382 , this Court held thus :
(SCC pp. 710-11, para 9):
"9. ... In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is bound to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn must be fully proved; the circumstances __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 50 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 Digitally signed CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:39:38 +0530 should be conclusive in nature; all the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence; and lastly the circumstances should to a great certainty exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. [State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642] The law relating to circumstantial evidence no longer remains res integra and it has been held by a catena of decisions of this Court that the circumstances proved should lead to no other inference except that of the guilt of the accused so that, the accused can be convicted of the offences charged. It may be stated as a rule of caution that before the court records conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence and the circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and further, all the circumstances taken together are incapable of any explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused."
39.In the decision in Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 668 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 870, this Court took note of the following principles laid down regarding the law relating circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487: (SCC p. 185, paras 153-54):-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] where the following observations were made : (SCC p. 807, para 19) '19. ... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 51 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.11.29 15:39:45 +0530 conclusions.' (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
40. After noting the above five golden principles, it was held in Prakash case, that they would constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and conviction could be sustained on the basis of last seen, motive and recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of the information given by the accused if those five golden principles of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence are satisfied.
41. In the present case, there is no direct or indirect ocular evidence which can show the involvement of the accused Devender Singh in the present matter. The documentary evidence on record and other circumstantial evidences, nowhere directly shows or connects, that accused Devender Singh conspired in forging the marksheet of accused Girdhari Lal or any other accused persons. However, the circumstantial evidences of the present case fail the test of five golden principles which constitutes the panchsheel of the proof of the case based on circumstantial evidence.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 52 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:40:00 +0530 CONCLUSION
42. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused Devender Singh beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly accused Devender Singh is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and substantive offences thereof.
43. Bailbonds, if any, of the accused Devender Singh on record are hereby extended u/s 437A Cr.P.C./481 BNSS.
44. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by MAYANKMAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.11.29 15:40:07 +0530 Announced in Open Court (MAYANK GOEL) on 29th of November, 2025 ACJM-02-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/464/2019 Page No. 53 of 53 RC- DAI-1998-A-0068 CBI vs. Devender Singh & Ors.