Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Rishi Nath Prashad on 11 December, 2025
____________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK GOEL
ACJM-02-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
____________________________________________________
CBI Vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD
Case No. : CC No. CBI/51/2019
FIR/RC No. : DAI-2015-A-0027
U/s : 120B r/w Section 419,
420 and 471 IPC &
substantive offences
thereof.
Name of Branch : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT120001492019
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri,
Deputy Secretary, UGC,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
Name, parentage & address : Rishi Nath Prasad
of the accused S/o Sh. Sidh Nath Prasad,
R/o Village Devi Sarai,
Post Maghra, PS Dip
Nagar, District Nalanda,
Bihar-803101.
The plea of the accused persons: Not guilty
Final Judgment : Convicted
Date of institution of case : 25.10.2016
Date of Judgment : 11.12.2025
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 1 of 78
RC-DAI/2015/A0027
CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date:
2025.12.11
14:37:53 +0530
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Satish Kumar Garg, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI.
Sh. K.P. Toms, Ld. counsel for accused Rishi Nath Prasad.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rishi Nath Prasad was sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w Section 419 and substantive offences under Section 420 IPC.
FACTS
2. The present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint dated 13.07.2015 of Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri, deputy secretary, UGC, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi. It is alleged in the complaint that during the year 2013, UGC, New Delhi had invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of approximately hundred Lower Divisional Clerk. Candidates were required to undergo a written exam as well as skill/typing test. UGC entered into contract with Educational Consultant India Ltd (Edcil) for organizing both these tests. Edcil throughout the country at different Centres including Patna, Kolkata and Delhi organized written test on 25.08.2013 and skill typing test on 7th and 8th December 2013. Successful candidates were appointed in UGC in 2014. After appointment of candidates, it was observed that performance of some of the LDCs were not up to the mark, therefore, UGC took typing test in March and April 2014 to assess their basic understanding and knowledge. Five candidates namely Anand Kumar Maurya, ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 2 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:38:00 +0530 Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan and Rishi Nath Prasad failed in the assessment test and were identified as average. UGC obtained handwriting/ thumb pression/specimen signatures of the above named LDC in 2014 and got compare the same with handwriting/thumb impression/specimen signatures obtained by Edcil during the year 2013 from CFSL, Shimla. CFSL has opined that their signature/ thumb impression did not match. On the basis of opinion given by CFSL Shimla, it was conclusively established that above named five LDCs did not appear physically in selection test in the year 2013 and some other persons had impersonated them and the same must have been in collusion with the officials conducting the examination. UGC terminated the service of all the five LDCs on 02.07.2015. It has been further alleged that above named accused persons in conspiracy with each other and with some unknown person committed serious fraud on UGC, New Delhi with sole malafide intention to cheat and secure a job in UGC and cause heavy wrongful financial losses on UGC.
3. During investigation, it has been revealed that an agreement dated 18.04.2013 was executed between M/s Edcil India Ltd. and UGC for rendering services by Edcil to UGC for direct recruitment of LDC which includes conduction of written examination and conduction for skill test. As per agreement, Edcil was required to organize receiving of applications through online system from candidates, providing a list of eligible candidates who have been primarily fulfilling the minimum ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 3 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:38:07 +0530 eligibility criteria with regard to age and qualification, preparation of three sets of question paper, preparation and issuance of e-admit cards, prepare attendance sheets, hire examination centre, examination superintendents, invigilators, relievers, clerks, group D staff etc. for each exam Centre. Edcil was further required providing question papers and OMR answer sheets as per requirement of centres in sealed envelopes which were further to be sealed in cartoons. Edcil was required to depute its representative for conducting of examination in each city/centre. After conduct of examination, all the OMR sheets shall be sealed in the presence of examination superintendent and Edcil officials and shall be brought at Edcil House, Noida under the direct supervision of Edcil officials for its evaluation. Edcil shall get evaluated OMR answer sheets at its office at Noida and result of written examination shall be prepared and submitted to UGC. Edcil shortlisted the candidates for skill test on the basis of format of merit list and criteria of shortlisted listed candidates for skill test through email issued under authorized signatory of UGC. Attendance sheet were also got printed by Edcil for the shortlisted candidates who were called for skill test and handed over to examination centre a day in advance. Skill test was conducted on computers only at the centre fixed by Edcil. Edcil hired services of eminent experts for preparation of skill test question papers, after conducting test, compiled and process the result of skill test, which was submitted to UGC.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 4 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:38:15 +0530
4. During investigation it has been further revealed that accused Rishi Nath Prasad was offered appointment for the post of LDC in UGC and in pursuance thereof he joined UGC and submitted his attestation form, identity certificate, declaration, character certificate and medical report on the 10.02.2014 in the UGC. After appointment of newly selected LDCs in UGC office at New Delhi, it was found that performance of some of newly appointed LDCs was not upto the mark, therefore UGC decided to conduct a typing test on their own of the newly appointed LDC is posted at UGC office at New Delhi. As per the noting dated 28.03.2014 of Sh. RIS Bhardwaj, section officer, in File F-51/95 (Admn. I/c), five new LDCs could not qualify the skill typing test at the desired speed i.e. 30 w.p.m.
5. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Rishi Nath Prasad had applied online vide registered Reference no. 20021627 for the post of Lower Division Clerk in University Grants Commission with his scanned signature. Printout of his application and E-admit card for written test to be held on 25.08.2013, have been taken during investigation from Edcil. His original attendance sheet bearing his photograph and signature and original OMR sheet number 1114110 bearing signatures in the name of Rishi Nath Prasad have been seized. He was asked to appear in skill/ typing test on 08.12.2013 at MGM College of engineering and technology, Noida. Printout of said letter has been seized during investigation from Edcil. Original typing sheet of typing test conducted at Edcil Centre, Noida on ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 5 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:38:22
+0530
08.12.2013 of Rajeev Ranjan has been seized from UGC which was checked by Shri GD Bisht and candidate was declared pass as his net typing speed was 47 w.p.m. Original typing sheet of typing test conducted at UGC on 19.03.2014 of Rajeev Ranjan has been seized from UGC which was checked by Sh. R.I.S. Bhardwaj and as per his evaluation, net speed of the candidate was 18 w.p.m. Thereafter, UGC suspected fraud and Sh. R.I.S. Bhardwaj, OS, UGC took specimen handwriting/thumb impression/specimen signature of candidate Rishi Nath Prasad LTS-5 on 26.05.2014 on one sheet and the same was sent to CFSL, New Delhi along with the attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013, attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013, OMR sheet dated 25.08.2013, typing test sheet dated 19.03.2014, typing test sheet dated 08.12.2013 for comparison and they are found different.
6. During investigation, the specimen signatures S-61 to S-70 and specimen left thumb impressions S-71 to S-80 of Rishi Nath Prasad on 11.01.2016 in the presence of independent witness and the same were sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for comparison with the questioned documents. Fingerprint expert, CFSL, New Delhi vide his report No. CFSL-2016/ A-366 dated 27.04.2016 has opined that question thumb impression marked as QD-9 (left thumb impression against the name of Rishi Nath Prasad on attendance sheet documents verification of written test) dated 25.08.2013, QD-10 (left thumb impression against the name of Rishi Nath Prasad on attendance sheet of typing test) dated 08.12.2013 are different from specimen thumb impression.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 6 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:38:30 +0530 During the investigation, accused Rishi Nath Prasad was arrested on 14.09.2016 and two days PC remand was obtained. He was interrogated in detail but he did not disclose the name and address of his impersonators.
7. Hence, it becomes abundantly clear that accused Rajeev Ranjan has committed the offence of a criminal conspiracy with unknown person to cheat UGC by making somebody else to sit in his own place for the purpose of getting selected himself in the examination. The above facts disclose the commission of offences punishable u/s 120-B r/w 419 and substantive offence u/s 420 IPC.
8. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE
9. Vide order dated 25.07.2023, charges were framed against the accused under Section 120B r/w Section 419,420 and 471 IPC and substantive offences u/s 419,420 and 471 IPC.
EVIDENCE
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten (10) witnesses: -
(a) PW-1 Ajay Kumar Khanduri deposed that the LDC recruitment in question was initially processed in the year 2013 and the recruitment process was conducted by EDCIL. After the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 7 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:38:40 +0530 receipt of final selected candidates, UGC offered appointment letters to the qualified candidates. However, it was noticed that some of the LDC appointed did not meet the requirement of typing test/skill test. Therefore, UGC also conducted its internal skill test and found that five LDCs could not qualified the skill test and were below average. On noticing that five LDCs who could not qualify the internal skill test conducted by UGC, their signatures and thumb impressions were taken and they were sent to CFSL, Shimla and as per the CFSL report, the thumb impressions and signatures taken at two places did not match.
The Director of CBI was approached by the UGC for conducting in depth investigation. The original complaint dated 13.07.2015 sent by UGC to CBI is Ex.PW1/A(colly). He correctly identified his signatures at point 'A' on page no. 3 and 9 of document D-16 i.e. personal file of accused. The page no. 3 and 9 are Mark 'A' and Mark 'B' respectively. Offer of appointment and joining letter respectively were issued to accused under his signatures on the approval of the competent authority of UGC.
PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW1 deposed that accused Rishi Nath Prasad never worked under him and he did not receive any complaint from the superior of accused Rishi Nath Prasad with whom the accused was working, regarding his work performance. The UGC administration has conducted a test of accused on the basis of which the complaint was processed for the higher authority. It is correct that it is mentioned in para no. 5 of page no. 2 of Ex.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 8 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:38:48 +0530 PW1/A (colly) that signatures and thumb impression did not match.
(b) PW-2 Sanjay Ralhan deposed that he was directed in September, 2016 to visit CBI Headquarters as a witness and in compliance of said order, he visited CBI Headquarters. In his presence, the thumb impressions of the five persons were obtained by the CBI officials on approximately 10 sheets which are Ex. PW2/A(colly). IO interrogated the accused in his presence and the personal belonging of the accused was seized by IO. The arrest cum personal search memo of accused dated 14.09.2016 is Ex. PW2/B(colly) (two pages). The atmosphere in the CBI office, when the specimen right thumb impression of the accused were being obtained was cordial.
PW2 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW2 deposed that he remained in the CBI office for about full day during the proceedings. Apart from him, the accused persons and CBI officials the staff of CBI was also present in the hall.
(c) PW-3 Sher Singh Yadav deposed that in the year 2013, UGC had asked EDCIL to conduct examination for the post of LDC and handover the merit list of candidates to UGC. The UGC appointed LDC on the basis of merit list and the candidates were given posting. The administration branch started receiving complaints regarding inefficiency of newly recruited LDCs. the administration branch conducted typing test of all LDCs and the accused was much below the prescribed speed and performance ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 9 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:38:55 +0530 was not upto the mark. Edcil sent certain forensic reports as per which someone else appeared in the examination and someone else joined as LDC. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Vigilance Branch and the accused was terminated. He correctly identified the accused in the court. The production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.10.2015 document D-27 is Ex.PW3/A(OSR). The production-cum-seizure memo document D-29 dated 02.11.2015 is Ex.PW3/B(colly)(02 pages)(OSR) regarding handing over of original attendance sheet document D-7 and OMR sheet of written examination conducted on 25.08.2013 (Ex. PW3/C(colly)(02 pages) and photocopy of attendance sheet of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 (original is annexed as D-8 in connected case of 'CBI vs. Anand Kumar Maurya') (Ex. PW3/D(colly)(02 pages), original checklist of verification of documents during typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 (Document D-9) (Ex. PW3/E), original report of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 (Document D-10) (Ex. PW3/F), original attestation form (Document D-11) produced by the accused at the time of joining UGC(Ex. PW3/G(colly)(14 pages), original identity card (Document D-12) of UGC(Ex. PW3/H), original report of typing test (Document D-13) conducted by UGC in March 2014(Ex. PW3/I), original specimen signatures/handwriting, left thumb impression of the accused taken by the UGC in May,2014(Ex. PW3/J) (part of Document D-3). The seizure memo dated 08.02.2016 is Ex. PW3/K(OSR) (original is annexed as D-31 in connected case of 'CBI vs. Anand Kumar Maurya'). The copy of file no. F-5-1/99(Admin. 1/C, Part ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 10 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:02 +0530 file) i.e. note portion of file regarding test of new LDCs is Ex.
PW3/L(colly)(OSR) (Document D-17) (Original is annexed as D-17 in connected case of 'CBI vs. Anand Kumar Maurya). The copy of file no. F-7-1/2014(Admin. 1/C, Part file) i.e. note portion of file regarding test of new LDCs is Ex. PW3/M(colly) (OSR)(Document D-18) (Original is annexed as D-18 in connected case of 'CBI vs. Anand Kumar Maurya).
PW3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW3 deposed that accused Anand Kumar Maurya worked with him for few months and none of other accused. He had never seen any written complaint by any of the sections against any of LDCs. There were oral complaints. He handing over the original FSL report as well as original documents to CBI on 06.10.2015 and on 02.11.2015. The documents handed over to CBI were not in a sealed cover. The skill test of around 90 newly recruited LDCs was not conducted/overseen by him. On the basis of notings in the file, he got to know that the accused could not pass the skill test conducted by UGC.
(d) PW-4 Ghanshyam Dass Devnani, deposed that in the year 2013, UGC had approached them for getting entrance tests conducted for the recruitment of LDCs at UGC and an agreement was executed between UGC and Edcil which is Ex. PW4/A(colly)(OSR) (Document D-4). The written exam was conducted at various exam centres across India on 25.08.2013. The exam was conducted in a peaceful and transparent manner as per the certificates obtained from concerned institutions. The ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 11 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:39:07
+0530
results were declared on 25.08.2013 and thereafter, skill typing test was conducted in the month of December, 2013. The result was conveyed to UGC and the role of Edcil ends here. In the year 2014, Edcil was informed by UGC that the performance of 5-7 candidates was not upto the mark. The UGC conducted their retest in the year 2014 itself. After test, UGC again wrote to them that the performance of 5 candidates (accused persons) was not found upto the mark. The UGC requested them to verify the biometrics of these candidates to ensure that these were the same candidates who had appeared in the written test and UGC has sent the thumb impressions and signatures of the candidates. After obtaining approval of Director, the attendance sheets of 5 candidates of the written exam conducted on 25.08.2013, attendance sheet of skill typing tests conducted in December 2013, the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of these five candidates provided to them by the UGC were sent to CFSL, Shimla for forensic examination and report. As per the report of CFSL, Shimla, the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of three candidates did not match with the signatures and thumb impressions on the attendance sheets of the respective tests conducted on 25.08.2013 and December 2013. However, there could not be rendered a conclusive opinion as regards two other candidates. Thereafter the documents pertaining to these two candidates were sent to CFSL, CBI Delhi. The report of CFSL, CBI found that the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of one candidate did not match with the signatures and thumb impressions on the attendance sheet of the respective tests ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 12 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:15 +0530 conducted on 25.08.2013 and in December 2013. Since, the report pertaining to one candidate was inconclusive, the document pertaining to this candidate was again sent to CFSL Shimla and this time CFSL Shimla gave a conclusive opinion as regards this candidate to the effect that the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of this candidate did not match with the signatures and thumb impressions on the attendance sheets of the respective test conducted on 25.08.2013 and December 2013. The UGC has been informed about the reports and the UGC got the case registered with CBI. The letter dated 29.08.2014 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC intimating that as per the reports received from CFSL, the specimen signatures and handwriting of Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Rajeev Ranjan did not match with the signatures on the attendance sheets of tests conducted on 25.08.2013 and 07/08.12.2013 is Ex.PW4/B(colly) (3 pages) (OSR)(Document D-15). The letter dated 01.12.2014 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC is Ex.PW4/C(colly) (3 pages) (OSR) (Document D-15). The letter dated 08.01.2015 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC is Ex.PW4/D(colly) (3 pages) (OSR) (Document D-15). The letter dated 04.03.2015 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC is Ex.PW4/E(colly) (OSR)(Document D-15). The production-cum- seizure memo of original certificates and consent letter obtained by Edcil from the Superintendent/Manager of the concerned school where examination of the accused persons was conducted ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 13 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:22 +0530 (Ex.PW4/G(colly) (8 pages) (Document D-5) is Ex.PW4/F(OSR) (Document D-28). The production-cum-seizure memo of print out of e-admit card of accused Rishi Nath Prasad (Ex.PW4/I) (Document D-19), print out of application for recruitment to the post of LDC of accused Rishi Nath Prasad (Ex. PW4/J) (Document D-20), print out of emails/letters between Edcil and UGC(Ex.PW4/K(colly)(7 pages) (Document D-21), copy of proforma for co-ordinator/observer for the written examination dated 25.08.2013 (Ex.PW4/L(colly)(9 pages)(OSR) (Document D22) and copy of certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW4/M(OSR), is Ex.PW4/H(OSR)(Document D-32).
PW4 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW4 deposed that after the tests in August,2013 and December,2013, they had not received any complaint from any centre regarding impersonation by any candidate. It is correct that all the centres had furnished certificate regarding peaceful conduct of the examination. They had not received any complaint whatsoever till the candidates joined UGC. At the time of skill test also, the thumb impressions and signatures of the candidates were taken by the invigilators on the attendance sheets. They had sent the thumb impressions and signatures taken at both the times to CFSL, Shimla. At the time of skill test, the identity of the candidates was supposed to be verified by UGC officials. During verification of candidates, the UGC officials had put the signatures on a sheet containing details of the candidates. It is correct that they had received a certificate from the MGM College where the skill test was conducted regarding peaceful ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 14 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:30 +0530 conduct of examination. He had ended over the said certificate to CBI. The verification of identity during the skill test was done first by Edcil, then by UGC officials and thereafter by invigilators of MGM College. The printout of the typing test is signed by the candidate and invigilator.
(e) PW-5 Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj, deposed that in the end of the year 2012, there was shortage of LDCs in the office of UGC. In view of the shortage, it was decided to outsource the work of selection of candidates for the post of LDCs to Edcil.
Accordingly, Edcil conducted a written test in mid-2013 and sent the result to UGC. Thereafter a typing test was required to be conducted, however Edcil requested them to depute some officers of UGC for the verification of documents. The typing test was conducted by and under the supervision of Edcil in Noida probably in December 2013. After the examination of merit list was prepared by Edcil on the basis of written test and typing test and it was sent to UGC. On the basis of said merit list, UGC appointed around 100 candidates. After the appointment of candidates, several oral complaints were being received regarding performance of the candidates, however, no officer was willing to give a complaint in writing. He informed his senior officers in writing about the receipt of complaints regarding performance of LDCs. At the senior level, a decision was taken to conduct a typing/skill test of all the candidates recruited through Edcil by the UGC. Accordingly in early 2014, a skill/typing test was conducted under the supervision and the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 15 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:38 +0530 performance of five candidates (accused persons) was found to be below par. Thereafter, Edcil was directed to conduct an enquiry/verification as to whether these candidates are the same persons who had appeared in the exam conducted by Edcil in mid-2013 and December 2013. The Edcil was also asked to verify the signatures and thumb impressions of these five candidates/accused persons. Accordingly, Edcil carried out the verification and got signatures and thumb impressions of the candidates matched from the another agency. After verification, Edcil found that there has been impersonation of these 05 candidates/ accused persons and Edcil reported this to UGC. The production-cum-seizure memo dated 06.01.2016 of copy of file no. F.1.29/2013(PUB/Admin.1/C) i.e note portion of file regarding test of new LDCs and pertaining to test which had already been conducted by them for the new LDCs as a result of which it was found that 05 LDCs/ accused persons had failed the test and had under-performed (Ex.PW5/B(colly)(31 pages)(OSR) (Document D-14) and the copy of bunch of lose papers having correspondence between Edcil and UGC(Ex.PW5/C(colly)(15 pages)(OSR)(Document D-15), is Ex.PW5/A(OSR)(Document D-30). The personal file no. F.1-16/2014(Admin I/C) of accused Rishi Nath Prasad is Ex.PW5/D(colly)(33 pages)(Document D-16). He correctly identified his signatures at point 'A' on different pages of file no. F-5-1/99 (Admn. I/C, part file) i.e. note portion of file regarding test of new LDCs which are already exhibited as PW3/L (OSR) (colly) . This is the same file which was dealt by him in his official course of duty which pertained to ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 16 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:39:45 +0530 the conduct of Skill typing test which was to be conducted by EdCIL after the result of the written test which had already been conducted by it and in relation to which they had also sought some officials of their department to be posed for document verification on the day when skill typing test was proposed to be conducted. He correctly identified his signatures and signatures of PW1 on Ex. PW3/M(colly)(OSR)(D-18). He correctly identified his signatures on Ex. PW3/J (D-3) and Ex. PW3/I (D-13). He correctly identified his signatures, signatures of Sh. A.K. Dogra on Ex. PW4/A(colly)(OSR) (D-4).
PW5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW5 deposed that it is correct that UGC had sent 12 officials to the Edcil centre at Noida at the time of typing test. He cannot say if the officials deputed by UGC had verified the documents of all the candidates appearing in the typing test, as he was not present there. He do not remember if any of the officials recruited by the UGC at the typing test, give any complaint of impersonation of any candidate. It is correct that he had verified the typing test conducted by UGC of all the candidates. After recruitment of LDCs, no training was given to them as there is no such requirement. It is correct that all the accused persons were working under different officers. The said officers had given verbal complaints to him regarding their performances. He cannot recollect the name of any such officer who had given verbal complaint to him. No complaint was received with respect to the written test conducted by Edcil of any candidate. None of the officers of UGC verified the documents at the time of skill ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 17 of 78 Digitally signed RC-DAI/2015/A0027 by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:40:06 +0530 test by Edcil informed that the documents of any particular candidate could not be verified. No complaint regarding impersonation was received from Edcil. It is correct that even after conduct of examination and furnishing of results by Edcil, part payment due to Edcil was withheld by UGC. The typing test of all the candidates conducted by UGC was carried out in my presence.
(f) PW-6 Avtar Singh Sagar deposed that on 11.01.2016, when he visited CBI office, the specimen signatures and left thumb impressions of accused Rishi Nath Prasad were taken on 10 sheets each in his presence. Thereafter, the signature of Rishi Nath, his signature and signatures of Kuldeep Singh were put on each of the sheets. On 12.01.2016, he again visited CBI office, the specimen signatures and left thumb impressions of accused Anand Kumar Maurya, Pappu Kumar and Rajeev Ranjan were taken on 10 sheets each in his presence. Thereafter, the signature of Rishi Nath, his signature and signatures of Kuldeep Singh were put on each of the sheets. All these 04 accused persons had furnished their specimen signatures and thumb impression voluntarily and without any force, coercion of any sort. The specimen signatures of accused Rishi Nath Prasad is Ex.
PW6/A(colly) (10 pages). The left thumb impressions of accused Rishi Nath Prasad is Ex. PW6/B(colly) (10 pages).
PW6 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW6 deposed that he is not personally aware of the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 18 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:40:27 +0530 details of the case except that he got to know that the case pertained to cheating in some clerical exam.
(g) PW-7 Uttam Sampat Gaikwad, deposed that in the year 2013, pursuant to an agreement/MoU between Edcil and UGC, they had conducted a written test in August 2013 for the purpose of recruitment of LDCs in UGC. After the declaration of the results of the written test in December 2013, they also had conducted a typing test for the persons who were shortlisted by way of written test. The results of written test were as per the cut- off set by UGC. On the day of typing test, there were also 10-12 officials of UGC who had the responsibility to verify the documents of the candidates appearing for the typing test. The typing test was conducted on 07/08 December 2013 at MGM College, Noida. On the day of typing test, the thumb impressions of the candidates and signatures were also taken by the official of Edcil present there. After preparation of final result, the result was sent to UGC. After sometime in the year 2014, Edcil received a letter from the UGC stating that the performance of some of the candidates was not satisfactory and request was made to make an enquiry in this respect. The names of 4-5 persons/ accused persons were mentioned in the said letter by UGC. Accordingly, at Edcil sent the attendance sheet, OMR sheets and other documents pertaining to the candidates whose name were mentioned in the letter to CFSL, Shimla. Adverse report was received from CFSL, Shimla and it was reported that the credentials of the candidates are not matching. They ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 19 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:40:35 +0530 forwarded the said report to the UGC. He correctly identified the signatures of Sh. K.V.L. Narsimhan on Ex.PW4/A(colly)(OSR). He correctly identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/E(colly)(OSR) and Ex. PW4/K(colly)(7 pages). He correctly identified his signatures as well as signatures of Sh. Ghanshyam Devnani on Ex. PW4/M(OSR).
PW7 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW7 deposed that he cannot identified the accused persons in the court. At the time of typing test, the candidates are permitted to take the test on the basis of admit card and any ID card produced by them as a time between verification and start of examination is very less. During the examination, signatures of the candidate were taken on the attendance sheets. The photographs on the admit card will also match with the person taking the exam. It is correct that as per record, the centre superintendent of the examination centre i.e. MGM College, Noida had given a certificate to the effect that the exam was conducted without any impersonation, cheating, in transparent, free, fair and in a peaceful manner. It is correct that after the conduct of examination, there was no complaint of impersonation before receipt of complaint from the UGC. It is correct that UGC had deputed their officials at the examination centre. At the time of checking of the admit card and government ID card, the UGC officials, the present in the centre, were not present at the spot where the said verification was taking place. During the exam or immediately thereafter, no invigilator made any complaint regarding any impersonation or fraud. As per ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 20 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:40:49
+0530
record, the typing test was conducted smoothly. It is correct that in the report received from CFSL, Shimla, it is stated that it was not possible to give opinion as original documents were not sent to CFSL, Shimla.
(h) PW-8 A.D. Shah, deposed that the present case, the CBI had forwarded to the CFSL, fingerprint division a number of question documents which included attendance sheet of some examination and also specimen thumb impression pertaining to the accused persons. The copy of forwarding letter no. DAI-2015-A-27/DLI dated 10.03.2016 by way of which the CBI had forwarded various questioned documents alongwith specimens to the Director, CFSL,CBI, New Delhi is Ex.PW8/A(colly)(8 pages) (OSR). The copy of forwarding letter no. DAI-2015-A-27/DLI dated 22.09.2016 by way of which the CBI had forwarded various questioned documents alongwith specimens to the Director, CFSL,CBI, New Delhi is Ex.PW8/B(colly)(5 pages) (OSR). The copy of forwarding letter dated 03.05.2016 alongwith the copy of report no. CFSL-2016/A-366 dated 27.04.2016 is Ex.PW8/C(colly)(5 pages)(OSR). The copy of forwarding letter of CFSL dated 09.11.2016 alongwith the copy of fingerprint examination report no. CFSL-2016/A-366 (R) dated 08.11.2016 is Ex.PW8/D(colly)(5 pages)(OSR).
PW8 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW8 deposed that it is correct that the questioned thumb impressions are of left thumb. The questioned documents examined by him were original. It is correct that no questioned ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 21 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:40:57 +0530 document containing right thumb impression of any of the accused persons had come to him for examination. It is correct that in both the reports, he did not examine any handwriting or signatures. He had examined only the thumb impression. He had examined both the thumb impressions as he was asked to do so, despite that there were no questioned right thumb impression.
(i) PW-9 Anil Sharma, deposed that in their division, the documents of this case were received internally from Fingerprint Division for examination and comparison of questioned signatures and writings with the specimens and to render an opinion thereon. The questioned signatures and writings were scientifically examined and compared with the specimen signatures and writings with the help of available scientific aids in CFSL after examination in comparison, a report was prepared. The copy of forwarding letter no.CFSL-2016/A-366/3872 dated 26.11.2018 addresses to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi alongwith report no. CFSL-2016/A-366 dated 15.11.2018 is Ex.PW9/A(colly)(10 pages).
PW9 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW9 deposed that the report Ex.PW9/A(colly)(10 pages) was prepared by him and other committee member after comparison and analysis. The report was typed by the stenographer. He was present with the stenographer when the report was been typed. It is correct that as per the report, the documents were received in the year 2016 whereas the report was prepared in 2018. During 2016-2018, the documents remain ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 22 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:03 +0530 with them. It is correct that when the documents were received in 2016, there was a covering letter of CBI with the documents. It is correct that they had read the said covering letter and had seen the documents in 2016 itself, though the examination started in 2018. It is correct that as per last para of the report which forms part of Ex.PW9/A(colly)(10 pages), he stated that for thorough scientific examination of certain documents and to arrive at any opinion with respect to the documents of which reproduced copies have been supplied, no original documents along with ample number of specimen and admitted writings and signatures are required. He did not seek any original documents or additional specimen/admitted writings/signature is from the CBI vide a separate letter after preparing the report. He neither informed or sought any original documents of the reproduced copies from the CBI before conducting the examination and preparing the report. It is correct that before the examination, he was aware that some of the documents or photocopies which he would be examining. It is correct that from 2016 to 2018, the documents remained with them without examination. It is correct that they have only examined the handwriting that signatures and not the thumb impressions. It is wrong to suggest that the characteristics of handwriting/signatures on a document change, if the document remains idle for a few years. It is correct that the specimen signature bear only the stamp of CFSL and not his signatures. The seal on the questioned documents as well as the specimen signatures was not put by him but it was done by the Assistant in his presence.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 23 of 78 Digitally signed RC-DAI/2015/A0027 by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:11 +0530
(j) PW-10 Kuldeep Singh, deposed that the present case was registered in the year 2015 on the basis of a complaint received from one Shri Ajay Kumar Khanduri who was the then Deputy Secretary, UGC. The investigation of this case was allocated to him. As per complaint, after the recruitment of LDCs which was done in the year 2013, the performance of some of the LDCs was not found up to the mark. In consequence of which, the UGC conducted its internal typing test for assessing the suitability of the candidates and in the result of the typing test, the performance of accused persons were found to be not satisfactory. After the result of these tests, UGC contacted Edcil and Edcil thereafter had sent to CFSL Shimla, the OMR sheets and attendance sheets along with other documents pertaining to the test conducted in August 2013 and December 2013 to be compared with the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of these candidates which were obtained by the UGC. The report given by CFSL, Shimla was to the effect that the questioned signatures and thumb impressions did not match with the specimens of the accused persons. This is how the complaint by UGC came to be filed on the basis of which the present a FIR was registered and investigation interested to him. The copy of FIR in RC-DAI-2015-A-0027 dated 30.09.2015 is Ex.PW10/A(colly)(8 pages)(OSR). During the course of investigation, he had extensively collected documents from both UGC as well Edcil which were pertaining to examination conducted in the year 2013 and also as regards the internal typing test conducted by UGC along with other relevant documents. The ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 24 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:18 +0530 document is a pertaining to the CFSL, Shimla along with the report itself were collected by him during investigation. He had also obtained the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of all the accused persons in the presence of independent witnesses at CBI office. He had also sent the question and documents which included the attendance sheets of written test as well as typing test, OMR sheets etc. to CFSL, New Delhi for the purposes of comparison of the same with the specimens obtained during investigation and to report. The report of CFSL, New Delhi was to the effect that the thumb impressions does not match with the specimens of the accused persons. The identity of those impersonators could not be ascertained and five chargesheets emanating from the present FIR was filed against the accused persons. He correctly identified the accused in the court. The chargesheet is Ex. PW10/B(colly)(12 pages).
PW10 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW10 deposed that it is correct that during the police custody of two days, nothing could be ascertained from the accused as to who had impersonated him in the exam. He did not remember if after PC of two days, any further request for extension of PC was made before the court. It is correct that during police custody of two days, no incriminating document was recovered from the accused. It is correct that there was no evidence of any criminal conspiracy between the accused in this case and the other accused persons who are facing trial separately. It is correct that till date, no person allegedly impersonated the accused has been found. It is correct that ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 25 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:41:25 +0530 involvement of no official of UGC and Edcil was found in this case. He did not visit any of the said centres. He had probably visited the centre at MGM College, Noida along with Edcil officials. He had not examined the invigilator or the centre superintendent at MGM College. It is correct that neither the invigilator of MGM College nor the Centre Superintendent of MGM college nor any of the UGC officials who had verified the documents were made witness or an accused. He had joined in investigation the senior officer of the accused. He had examined the complainant as well as to section officers of UGC. I cannot say whether than UGC officer to whom the accused was directly reporting was examined or not. He had examined one Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj to whom the matter was reported regarding unsatisfactory performance of the accused. He had not checked the ACR of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that except UGC, he had not received any incriminating documents from the accused or anybody else. It is correct that there is nothing on record to show if the accused had committed any alteration in the OMR sheet, typing sheet or document verification sheet. It is correct that the attendance sheet was having the photograph of the accused. He had not put the photographs on the attendance sheets to the invigilator of MGM College, Noida. He had gone through the report of CFSL, Delhi. It is correct that he had sent the specimen RTI of the accused for comparison with the LTI appearing on the question documents. That the purpose was to ascertain if the accused had put his RTI instead of LTI on the question documents.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 26 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:32 +0530 STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
11. After closure of PE, separate statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 14.07.2025 in which accused submits that he is innocent. That the entire case is false and fabricated case against him. That the prosecution witness PW9 A.D. Sah also admitted in his statement dated 24.02.2025 that what is stated in the report is correct whereas his report is full of falsehood and assumptions and not based on actual figures. That the report of A.D Sah is unreliable as it contains only assumptions, imagination and falsehood and does not inspire any confidence and also not probable. Despite investigation by CBI, there is no evidence that any other person impersonated on his behalf or on behalf of other accused persons or that all the accused persons were known to each other before joining the service. It has also come on record that CFSL report of Delhi dt. 15.11.2018 is admittedly based on photocopies and despite specific demand for originals, the same was never provided to CFSL Delhi. Therefore, the said report based on photocopies is also not reliable. That he is from poor financial, social and economic background, therefore he was made a scape goat by UGC to delay the payment from UGC to Edcil. He had not voluntarily given specimen of signatures, his right thumb and left thumb impressions at CBI Office in presence of independent witnesses. All the witnesses have been tutored to give false statement against him. If there had been any offense of impersonation as alleged, the same could not have been possible ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 27 of 78 Digitally signed RC-DAI/2015/A0027 by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:40 +0530 without the aid, support and connivance of Edcil and UGC officials. In this case after investigation none of the Edcil or UGC Officials were made co-accused, therefore it is proved that no such offence took place. It is wrong to say that his performance is not satisfactory as during his service tenure, he was never intimated by his superior that his performance was not satisfactory. Had it been so, he would have been issued a memo to this effect, whereas he was orally told by his superior that his performance was good as per the ACR. The skill re-test taken by UGC was a surprise one and he was out of practice from December, 2013 to March, 2014 and he was allotted some other work such as assistant's work, putting file for releasing of grant, also sending file for this section to higher authority and answering the parliament question, etc. Therefore, it is probable that his speed would be low. If his performance was below par, no memo was issued to him on this aspect nor placed on record, which also shows that it is a fabricated case. That there was no complaint against him by his reporting officer under whom he worked nor any complaint by any officer was on record. No oral complaint has been received against him as no complainant is identified. It is absolutely wrong that administration started getting complaint that he was not efficient. Edcil Officer, invigilator and Centre Superintendent have given certificate that all exam conducted smoothly without any problem and there was no complaint of impersonation. So there is no question of any other person having appeared on his behalf on his test conducted by Edcil. UGC wanted some scape goat to discredit Edcil to ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 28 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:48 +0530 delay their remaining payment and that is how his job was terminated.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. Ld. counsel for the accused has moved an application under Section 315 CrPC seeking permission to examine the accused as a witness, besides examining three witnesses i.e. Anil Kumar, Arun Kumar, Shyam Bahadur Sah and Arun Kumar Sinha. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW1, Sh.
Anil Kumar as DW2, Sh. Arun Kumar as DW3, Sh. Shyam Bahadur Sah as DW4 and Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha as DW5.
a) DW1 Rishi Nath Prasad deposed that he was the person who had appeared in the written exam dt. 25.08.2013 which took place at Veena Vidya Niketan, Patna. He had appeared in the skill typing test on 08.12.2013 at MGM College, Noida. The document verification was also done on the same day. He joined UGC on 31.01.2014. He had worked there for around 18 months and two ACRs were written for the said period. He identified his admit card bearing his photograph which is already Ex.PW4/I. He identified his signatures and left thumb impression on attendance sheet dt. 25.08.2013 already Ex.PW3/C (colly) (2 pages). After his successful performance in the written test, he was issued a letter dt. 14.11.2013 for appearing in the typing test. At the time of typing test his original documents were verified and a stamp was put on the letter dt. 14.11.2013. The copy of letter dt. 14.11.2013 is Mark A. He had also challenged his ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 29 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:41:55 +0530 termination before Hon'ble CAT, which is pending adjudication. The photocopy of rejoinder affidavit filed by him on 05.07.2023 is Mark B (colly) (3 pages).
DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and he deposed that he had worked in UGC as LDC till 02.07.2015. He was terminated by the competent authority of UGC on the ground that he had not appeared in the entrance exams dt. 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013 and someone else has impersonated on his behalf. I had given the typing test conducted by UGC in March, 2014 for the purpose of assessing his performance. At the time of appearing in the test, he did not know who he had performed in the test and he came to know about his performance only after receiving the copy of charge-sheet in the present case.
He correctly identified his signature on Ex.PW3/I which was the typing test for which he had appeared on 19.03.2014. As per the result of this test, his net speed is 14 wpm. He voluntarily deposed that he had also given another typing test conducted by UGC around the same period. It is wrong to suggest that there was only one typing test conducted by UGC for which he had appeared and that is why he was unable to produce any document supporting his statement. He did not remember whether he had given any specimen signature and thumb impression to UGC Officials subsequent to the typing test conducted by UGC on 19.03.2014. He correctly identified his signatures, left thumb impression and writings which he had given to UGC Official R.I.S. Bhardwaj on 26.05.2014 on Ex.PW3/J. He correctly identified his specimen signatures Ex.PW6/A (colly) (10 pages) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 30 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:03 +0530 and specimen LTIs Ex. PW6/B(colly)(10 pages) which he had given to CBI. The CBI officials has pressurised him to give specimen signature and thumb impressions on 12.01.2016. On 12.01.2016, when he had given his specimen signatures and thumb impressions he was not under arrest and was not in the police custody of CBI. He did not lodge any complaint with any authority about CBI obtaining his specimen signatures and thumb impressions forcibly. He correctly identified his specimen RTIs which he had given to CBI Ex. PW2/A(colly). The CBI officials has pressurised him to give specimen thumb impressions on 14.09.2016. On 14.09.2016, when he had given his specimen thumb impressions he was not under arrest and was not in the police custody of CBI. He did not lodge any complaint with any authority about CBI obtaining his specimen signatures forcibly.
Since December, 2013 till March,2014, he was out of practice of typing and at that time when he was called in the administration, he was nervous and that is why his typing speed drastically decreased. The reporting time at the centre was 09:00 am on 25.08.2013. The exams was of two hours duration. He did not remember the room no. which was allotted to him while appearing for the written examination conducted on 25.08.2013. There was one invigilator in his room and he was male. He also did not remember the question booklet set no. viz A, B, C or D which was handed over to him. The reporting time for the exam conducted on 08.12.2013 was 2:00 pm. He did not remember the Sector in which his centre was located. The typing test was for only 10 minutes but the entire process took around 2 to 2-1/2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 31 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:10 +0530 hours. He cannot tell the exact time when the examination began and was concluded. The exam was conducted in one Hall and not in any separate room. He did not remember as to how many invigilators were present in the Hall. He did not remember in how many batches the typing test was conducted but his batch no. was 8.
b) DW2 Pankaj Chandra deposed that he identified his signatures on document Ex. PW3/E. On 08.12.2013, he had verified the documents of the accused as mentioned in serial no.
1 to 7 of document Ex. PW3/E (D-9). He had not found any impersonation or any forgery in any of these documents. After verifying the documents and satisfying himself, his job came to an end. He failed to identify as to who has written the statement and in whose writing it is in document Ex. PW3/E. He had also verified the photograph which the candidate had brought by comparing it with the candidate.
DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and deposed that he was deputed by UGC for the purpose of document verification on 08.12.2013. The process of verification conducted by him was that he took original documents from the candidate, looked at them and returned the original documents to them. He did not do any other act besides this. He did not remember whether he was duty-bound to also ascertain the identity of the candidate. That he had checked the admit card of the candidate. He did not remember whether he had checked the photograph of the candidate appearing on his admit card. He did ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 32 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:16 +0530 not even remember a photograph of the candidate was affixed on the admit card. No departmental enquiry has been initiated against him with respect to the present case. He was not aware if CBI had recommended initiation of departmental enquiry against him in the present case. He cannot say that the person who had appeared before him was the actual candidate as he had seen his admit card, as already stated. He did not remember as to who had filled the columns stating "yes" under Part B of Ex.PW3/E. He identified the accused in the court by pointing out. He can identify him because he has worked in the UGC. Accused has not worked with him. Accused was terminated from service because there was some typing issue.
c) DW3 Arun Kumar had brought the Performance Assessment Performa of accused dated 02.09.2014 which is exhibit DW3/A. DW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI despite opportunity being given.
d) DW4 Shyam Bahadur Sah deposed that the accused worked with him for around a year or so. He had himself filled in the details in Ex. DW 3/A. The assessment in respect to the typing speed of accused which was awarded by him is 8. So long as accused was posted under him, he had received no complaint regarding him from anybody else. He had also never filed any complaint pertaining to accused while it was working under him.
DW4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and deposed that he had joined UGC on 15.09.1989 as LDC. In 2014, ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 33 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:23 +0530 he was not engaged in typing work in the official course of duties. After his initial joining in 1989, he was performing typing work for around 10 years and after that, he left the job of typing. He did not remember whether he had given any of these other subordinate employees assessment less than 8 in respect of their typing speed. He did not remember how he calculated the typing speed of accused.
(e) DW5 Arun Kumar Sinha deposed that he was working as Section Officer in the UGC in the year 2014. Accused Rishi Nath Prasad, after his joining, was working under me. Accused Rishi Nath Prasad was assigned the work of filling up of forms in the computer system. In addition to that, accused Rishi Nath Prasad was also assigned file work. He was not having any complaint with the performance of Rishi Nath Prasad till the time the accused worked under me. He never lodged any complaint against the accused before any senior officer. He had filled up the performance assessment report of six months for accused. He had not filled up the ACR of entire year of accused Rishi Nath Prasad.
DW5 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and deposed that Shyam Bahadur Sah was looking after Major Research Project in Humanities in the year 2014. Accused Rishi Nath Prasad also used to work under Shyam Bahadur Sah after his joining at times. There were no fixed hours for days when accused used to work under Shyam Bahadur Sah. There was no official order regarding deputation of accused under any officer.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 34 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:31 +0530
13. 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 accused.
15. It has been argued by Ld. Sr.PP for CBI that this case was registered on 30.09.2015 on the basis of written complaint dated 13.07.2015 of Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri, Dy. Secretary, UGC, New Delhi against accused Anand Kumar Mourya, Rajeev Ranjan, Rishi Nath Prasad, Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar and other unknown private persons and public servants. It was alleged that a written exam and a skill/typing test was conducted by Educational Consultant India Ltd. (Edcil), Noida on behalf of UGC for recruitment of 100 Lower Divisional Clerks. Written test was held at different Centres on 25.08.2013 and Skill/Typing test was held on 07 & 08.12.2013. Successful candidates had joined UGC in the year 2014. After their joining, it was found that performance of some of the LDCs were not up to the mark. Therefore, UGC had conducted an internal typing test in March & April, 2014 in which accused Anand Kumar Mourya, Rajeev Ranjan, Rishi Nath Prasad, Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar had failed in the test. UGC had obtained specimen thumb impression/handwriting/signatures of these five failed candidates and sent to Edcil for obtaining opinion of hand writing expert. Edcil had sent the specimen alongwith questioned thumb ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 35 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:38 +0530 impression/signature to CFSL, Shimla and CFSL, Delhi and reports were given by CFSL that the questioned signatures/thumb impressions did not match with the specimens. Thereafter, UGC terminated the services of all the above named five LDCs on 02.07.2015.
16. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that investigation was conducted and during investigation, relevant documents were seized by the IO, fresh specimen of the five accused persons were obtained, witnesses were examined and CFSL report on the questioned handwriting/thumb impression was obtained. Impersonators who had made signatures of the candidates, could not be traced during investigation. After completion of investigation, separate five charge-sheets were filed against all of the five accused persons u/s 120B r/w 419 IPC and substantive offence u/s 420 IPC.
17. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that the fact in issue in the present case is that whether accused Rishi Nath Prasad had appeared in the written test held on 25.08.2013 and in the typing test held on 08.12.2013 and whether Rishi Nath Prasad had skill to type words in Hindi and English at the speed of 30 words per minute.
18. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that some facts are not disputed between the Prosecution and Defence like Edcil was engaged by UGC to conduct written test and skill test, these tests were actually happened, no complaint of ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 36 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:45 +0530 impersonation had come from Edcil till the complaint of UGC to Edcil in the year 2014, the accused had joined UGC in February 2014, an internal test was conducted by UGC after joining the accused Rishi Nath Prasad in which he scored speed of 18 words per minute and his service was terminated on 02.07.2015 by UGC.
19. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that the prosecution had examined Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri, Dy.
Secretary, UGC as PW1 who deposed about the process of the appointment, internal skill test and correspondence between UGC and Edcil. PW1 had proved his complaint dated 13.07.2025 as Ex.PW1/A (Colly). In the cross examination, nothing substantial about the complaint, internal skill tests, process or termination of service was asked rather a suggestion was given that it is correct that the signature and thumb impression did not match. Sh. Sanjay Ralhan (PW2) proved specimen thumb impression of the accused i.e. S131 to S140 as Ext.PW2/A (Colly). Sh. Sher Singh Yadav (PW3), Section Officer, UGC deposed that the Administration Branch started receiving complaints about the newly recruited LDCs and a typing test of all the LDCs was conducted in which it was found that typing speed of accused Rishi Nath Prasad was much below the prescribed speed. He also deposed about the further process adopted by the UGC. He proved a seizure memo D-27 as Ex.PW3/A and seizure memo D-29 as Ex.PW3/A (Colly). He identified original attendance and OMR sheet of written ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 37 of 78 Digitally signed RC-DAI/2015/A0027 by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:42:52 +0530 examination conducted on 25.08.2013 (D-7, Ex.PW3/C colly), copy of the attendance sheet of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 (D-8, Ex. PW3/D colly), Original Check List of verification of documents (D-9, Ex. PW3/E), Original report of typing test (D-10, Ex. PW3/F), Original Attestation Form (D-11, Ex. PW3/G colly), Original Identity Card (D-12, Ex. PW3/H) and Original Report of typing test conducted by UGC in March 2014 (D-13, Ex. PW3/I) which were given to CBI through seizure memo Ex. PW3/B (colly). He also proved original specimen of Sh. Rishi Nath Prasad taken by UGC in May 2014 (part of D-3, Ex. PW3/J) which was also given to CBI through seizure memo Ex. PW3/B (colly). He also identified another seizure memo (D-31, Ex. PW3/K) through which two part files (D-17 & D-18, Ex. PW3/L (colly) & Ex. PW3/M (colly) were given to CBI. In the cross examination, he deposed that there were oral complaints against Sh. Rishi Nath Prasad. Sh.
Ghanshyam Das Devnani, Manager, Edcil (PW4) proved original agreement dated 18.04.2013 made between UGC and Edcil (D-4, Ex. P4/A colly). He had proved various letters written to the UGC in the year 2014 & 2015 by Edcil (D-15, Ex. PW4/B (colly), Ex.PW4/C (colly), Ex. PW4/D (colly) and Ex. PW4/E (colly). He also identified a seizure memo (D-28, Ex. PW4/F) through which original certificates and consent letters obtained from the concerned schools were given to CBI (D-5, Ex. PW4/G colly). He also identified another seizure memo (D-32, Ex. PW4/H). He identified print out of e-admit card of Sh. Rishi Nath Prasad (D-19, Ex. PW4/I), print out of application of Rishi ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 38 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:43:00 +0530 Nath Prasad (D-20, Ex. PW4/J), print outs of emails / letters between Edcil and UGC (D-21, Ex. PW4/K colly), proforma for co-ordinator / observer for written examination (D-22, Ex. PW4/L colly) and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (D-23, Ex. PW4/M) which were given to CBI through seizure memo Ex. PW4/H. In the cross examination, he deposed that the identity of candidates at the time of skill test was supposed to be verified by UGC officials. Sh. Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj, Section Officer, UGC (PW5) identified a seizure memo (D-30, Ex. PW5/A). He also identified a file of UGC pertaining to the internal test conducted by UGC (D-14, Ex. PW5/B colly) and correspondence between EDCIL and UGC (D-15, Ex. PW5/C colly) which were given to CBI through seizure memo Ex.
PW5/A. He also identified personal file of Rishi Nath Prasad (D-16, Ex. PW5/D colly). He deposed that specimen signature and left thumb impression of Rishi Nath Prasad were taken by him on 26.05.2014 and he identified his signature and official stamp on the specimen i.e. Ex. PW3/J. He also deposed that typing test was conducted by UGC in March 2014 under him and he identified report i.e. D-13 already exhibited PW3/I. In the cross examination, this witness also deposed that he had received verbal complaints pertaining to performance of Rishi Nath Prasad. Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar, witness of specimen (PW6) deposed that specimen signature and left thumb impression was given by Rishi Nath Prasad in his presence on 11.01.2016 voluntarily and without any coercion of any sort. He identified specimen signature of Rishi Nath Prasad (S61 to S70, Ex.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 39 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:43:54 +0530 PW6/A colly) and specimen left thumb impression of Rishi Nath Prasad (S71 to S80, Ex. PW6/B colly). Sh. Uttam Sampat Gaikwad, GM, Edcil (PW7) deposed that it was his duty to ensure proper conduct of various examinations and its monitoring. He also deposed that on the day of typing test, there were 10-12 officials from UGC who were responsible to verify the documents of the candidates appearing for the typing test which was conducted on 07 & 08.12.2013 at MGM College, Noida. He also deposed about the enquiry conducted by EDCIL regarding the candidates reported by UGC. In the cross examination, he deposed that the UGC officials, though present in the centre, were not present at the spot where the verification was taking place. He denied the suggestion that the verification of the documents took place at four stages. Sh. A.D. Sah, Fingerprint Expert, CFSL (PW8) proved forwarding letter of CBI (D-24, Ex. PW8/A colly) and another forwarding letter of CBI (D-25, Ex. PW8/B colly). He identified a forwarding letter along with report dated 27.04.2016 (D-26, Ex. PW8/C colly) through which he gave a report that question thumb impressions QD9 & QD10 were different from S71 to S80 of Rishi Nath Prasad. He identified another forwarding letter along with report dated 08.11.2016 (Ex. PW8/D (colly) through which he gave a report that question thumb impressions QD9 & QD10 are identical with each other but different from right thumb impression S131 to S140 of Rishi Nath Prasad. He identified QD9 & QD10 on original attendance sheets dated 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013 (D-7 & D-8, Ex. PW3/C colly & Ex. PW3/D (colly). He also ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 40 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:01 +0530 identified specimen left thumb impression and specimen right thumb impression of Rishi Nath Prasad on S71 to S80 and S131 to S140 respectively (Ex. PW6/B (colly) & Ex. PW2/A (colly). He identified another forwarding letter along with report dated 27.10.2014 (D-3, Ex. PW8/E colly) through which he gave a report that question thumb impressions QD9 & QD10 are different from LTS-5 of Rishi Nath Prasad. He also identified specimen left thumb impression i.e. LTS-5 on Ex. PW3/J. In the cross examination, this witness deposed that questioned documents examined by him were original. Defence did not ask any question on the reasons given by this witness in support of his reports. Sh. Anil Sharma, Handwriting Expert, CFSL (PW-9) proved forwarding letter along with report dated 15.11.2018 (Ex.PW9/A colly) through which he gave a report that questioned signature marked Q17 could not be connected with S61 to S70 of Rishi Nath Prasad. He identified Q17 at the attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013 on Ex. PW3/C colly. He also identified specimen signatures of Rishi Nath Prasad i.e. S61 to S70 on Ex.PW-6/A colly. Defence did not ask any question on the reasons given by this witness in support of his report. Sh.
Kuldeep Singh, IO (PW-10) identified FIR (D-2, Ex. PW10/A colly) and chargesheet (Ex.PW10/B colly). He also identified various seizure memos, forwarding letters, letters and specimens. In the cross examination, he deposed that the impersonator could not be found and involvement of any official of UGC & Edcil was not found. He also deposed that he did not check the ACR of the accused.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 41 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:44:08
+0530
20. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that accused Rishi Nath Prasad had failed in the internal typing test conducted on 24.03.2014 after his joining in UGC on 10.02.2014. Prosecution has also proved that questioned thumb impressions QD9 on original attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013 (D-7, Ex.PW3/C colly) and questioned thumb impression QD10 on original attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013 (D-8, Ex.PW3/D colly) are not of Sh. Rishi Nath Prasad. He had not appeared in the written test on 25.08.2013 at Kolkata and in the typing test of 08.12.2013 at Noida but someone else who could not be identified during the investigation, had appeared on behalf of accused Rishi Nath Prasad in these tests. That's why accused Rishi Nath Prasad had failed in the internal test conducted by UGC after one & half month of his joining.
21. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr.PP of CBI that the case of the defence is that the accused Rishi Nath Prasad claimed in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. in answer to question No.2 that the skill test was a surprise one and he was out of practise from December 2013 to 10.02.2014. He also made a false statement that typing test was conducted on 12.02.2014 by UGC. He admitted in answer to question No.9 that his speed would be low in the internal test. He made a story in answer to question No.11 that UGC wanted some scapegoat to discredit Edcil to delay their remaining payment and for this reason, his job was terminated. He also made a false statement in answer to question No.13 that ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 42 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:15 +0530 CFSL Shimla report is based on photocopies of signatures. He tried to rebut the prosecution case by saying in answer to question No.30 that MGM College had issued a certificate that there was no leakage, cheating or impersonation during the typing test held on 7th & 8th December 2013.
22. It has been further argued by Ld. Sr. PP of CBI that accused Rishi Nath Prasad had examined himself as DW-1. He had filed a copy of computer centre, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda through which he claimed his typing speed as of 39 words per minutes. In the cross-examination done by prosecution, he admitted that his typing speed was found very low in the internal test conducted by UGC after his joining. He admitted his specimens given by him to UGC and to CBI. He also deposed that the computer centre of which he had submitted a copy before the court, is a private institute and he had paid fee in cash to the centre. The accused tried to show his typing speed above the prescribed limit by producing a photocopy of a private institute without summoning the owner / manager of the said institute. Defence had produced Sh. Pankaj Chandana as DW2 who had verified the documents of accused Rishi Nath Prasad on 08.12.2013. In the cross examination, he deposed that about 100 candidates had appeared in the typing test and he cannot say at what time the typing test had begun. He did not tell to the court at what time he had verified the documents of accused Rishi Nath Prasad. He also admitted that he was not in a position to tell the exact time of verification after seeing Ex. PW3/E. He ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 43 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:22 +0530 admitted that Ex. PW3/E was not filled in his handwriting. He had not got signature of candidate on Ex. PW3/E on 08.12.2013. He was working with accused Rishi Nath Prasad in UGC after joining of accused Rishi Nath Prasad and he was also on talking terms with accused Rishi Nath Prasad. He knew that accused Rishi Nath Prasad was facing the issue in typing. Sh. Arun Kumar, Section Officer, UGC was examined as DW3 who produced performance assessment proforma of accused Rishi Nath Prasad from the records of UGC. Sh. Shyam Bahadur Sah, Section Officer, UGC was examined as DW4 who deposed that accused Rishi Nath Prasad had worked with him for around 6 months. He identified his signature on the performance assessment proforma Ex. DW3/A. In this proforma, someone had filled the typing speed as of 32 words per minute. In the cross examination, he admitted that he also belongs to Bihar. He deposed that he left the job of typing around the year 1999. He did not tell the court how he calculated the typing speed Rishi Nath Prasad and who authorized him to fill such a proforma. Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, Section Officer, UGC was examined as DW5 who stated that he had filled up the performance assessment report of 6 month of accused Rishi Nath Prasad. However, no such report was shown to the witness by the defence.
23. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI relied upon certain judgments which are as follows:
a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs State of MP 1980 AIR 531, held that there is no rule of law, nor any ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 44 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:29 +0530 rule of prudence which has crystalized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted. Section 73 of the Evidence Act enables the court to compare disputed writing with admitted or proved writing to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and two voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 45 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:36 +0530 conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert.
b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1708 held that the science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt.
24. It has been further argued that the prosecution has proved the fact that accused Sh. Rishi Nath Prasad had performed below average in the internal typing test held by the UGC in March 2014 and the accused has also admitted this fact in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and in his cross examination done by the prosecution. Prosecution has also proved that thumb impression on the original attendance sheet of written exam and on original attendance sheet of typing test is not of accused Rishi Nath Prasad and the signature on attendance sheet of written exam is not of accused Rishi Nath Prasad. The accused has produced a photocopy of a private institute to show his typing speed but this document has not been proved by the defence as per Indian Evidence act. The cross examination of the experts was not done on merits. The defence heavily relies upon the certificates issued by the institutes that no impersonation was found at the Centres. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Rishi Nath Prasad was caught by the UGC after his joining and not before that. How Rishi Nath Prasad entered in the centres and how he cheated the staff present there, is not a fact in issue in this case. The real fact before the court is that Rishi Nath Prasad is not the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 46 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:43 +0530 same person who has appeared in the exams. The prosecution has produced all the evidences oral and scientific which could have been produced. From these evidences, there is no doubt that accused Rishi Nath Prasad is the beneficiary and he cheated the Ed.CIL and UGC.
25. Ld. defence counsel, on the other hand, submitted that in Criminal cases only a doubt created regarding the commission of an offence is sufficient for acquittal whereas for the prosecution, it has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as standard of proof for conviction.
26. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in the present case, the allegation of impersonation is impossible because the Photo Identity Card is checked with the identity of the candidate appeared at a different stages i.e. at the time of writing test on 25.08.2013, at the gate, by both the invigilators at the time of signing the Attendance Sheet and giving the OMR sheet. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that after the completion of Written Test, the OMR Sheet was packed and sealed in the presence of invigilators, Edcil Officials and Centre Superintendents, so there is no chance of any impersonation at this stage.
27. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Invigilators have also given a certificate that no relation or any dependents appeared in the examination, so the accused persons are not relatives or dependents of invigilators. That Centre ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 47 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:44:50 +0530 Superintendent has given a certificate dated 25.08.2013, that there is no case of impersonation, cheating or disturbance, any leakage of question paper during the conduct of examination. These certificates D5 page no.7 and D6 are admitted by the prosecution in the order dated 11.08.2025. This certificate fully supporst the stand of the accused that there is no case of impersonation or cheating at any stage as alleged or otherwise.
28. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in the present case, the allegations of impersonation is also impossible because of checking of the identity of candidates (D19- E admit Card with Photocopy) at the time of typing test on 07/08.12.2013, at the gate, by invigilators, Edcil officials and the documents have also been verified by UGC officials. Typing test result sheet is signed by candidates and 4-5 officials, who were there in the exam centers connected with the typing exam. At this stage also the alleged impersonation is impossible because all these officials checked the identity of the candidate with Photo Admit Card and also at this stage the Photographs are affixed/stapled on the check list by the UGC Officials. In one Table two UGC officials are deputed for checking documents verification and signing the check list. The said UGC officials also checked the other documents such as photo and signature matched with the application and Attendance Sheet. Signature and left thumb impression taken on the Attendance Sheet. Proof of date of birth from the original certificate of High School/ Secondary Examination. Certificate of category i.e. General, ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 48 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:44:58
+0530
OBC, SC and ST. Education Qualifications 10th /12th/ Graduation/ Post Graduation. Original / E admit Card issued for conduct of written examination on 25.08.2013 and for typing/ Skill Test on 07/08.12.2013 sheets. After the test is over, the typing test result sheet is signed by the candidates and 4-5 officials and was packed and sealed in the presence invigilators, EdCIL Officials, UGC Officials and Centre Superintendents, so there is no chance of any Impersonation at this stage also. In D 17 Page no.8- Names of UGC officials for documents verification given. Page no. 7 instructed that for checking the typing sheet and for declaration of result an expert is required to be appointed. There is no proof that the person so appointed was an expert, undergone the required training and passed the typing exam and has certificate to that effect. That Centre Superintendent has given a certificate dated 08.12.2013, that there is no case of impersonation, cheating or disturbance, any leakage of question paper during the conduct of examination. This certificate is also admitted by the prosecution in the order dated 11.08.2025. Therefore, at both these stages the alleged impersonator or cheating is impossible.
29. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that all attendance sheets are with photographs and only after matching it with the Photo ID Card of the candidate and satisfying that the same person has come whose Photographs is on attendance sheet, candidates are allowed to attend the exam at 3 stages i.e. writing test, documents verification for typing test and typing test. In ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 49 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:45:05 +0530 D-21 page no.1 Email communication dated 25.08.2013 and 26/08/2013 between Edcil and UGC proved that the exam went off well in 240 centers and 15 cities without any problem.
30. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution does not state at which stage the alleged impersonation took place i.e. Writing Test Stage, Documents verification stage or typing test stage.
31. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Accused persons passed both the writing and typing test conducted by the UGC for the appointment of LDCs. At the time of joining the same, the same UGC Officials who had conducted the documents verification were called to the UGC Office and only on their identifying all accused persons as the same candidates who appeared for the typing test, these five accused persons were permitted to join the UGC Office. Therefore, they were also double checked and the UGC officials were satisfied regarding their identity.
32. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the document D18 at page 3, Para 9, sub point (i) (ii), it is stated that no typing work is to be given and only file processing work to the newly recruited LDCs and one contractual worker for typing work to be given is deputed in each section and the signature of that communication is on page 4 dated 06.01.2014. So, it is clear that before the new LDCs were appointed such action was planned by UGC in advance. It is further proved that to clear ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 50 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:45:12 +0530 pending work, the file arranging work was given to accused person. That in document no. D 17 Page no.8, names of UGC officials (serial no.8 Babita Gupta and Pankaj Chandana) who did the documents verification is given on 07.08.12.2013. That the said Pankaj Chandana appeared as DW2 confirmed the same in the testimony dated 03.09.2025.That the accused persons were also given file processing work, therefore, their typing speed was not very high, because they have not been given typing work. It is not a case they did not know typing at all. That the same is corroborated by their section officer with whom the accused persons worked through ACR/ Performance Appraisal Performa dated 01.09.2014 in their testimony dated 03.09.2025.
33. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that false and unsubstantiated allegations were made against all 5 Accused Persons namely Anand Kumar Maurya, Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan and Rishi Nath Prasad that their typing speed is not upto the mark because UGC wants to delay the remaining payment of fees to EdCIL and also to retain the contractual workers who have been doing the typing work and also to appoint candidates who are lower in the rank of merit list.
34. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the initial Complaint is based on a series of letters D15 dated 29.08.2014, 01.12.2014, 08.01.2015, 04.03.2015 and in all these letters, Edcil was demanding the balance payment.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 51 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:45:19 +0530
35. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no complaint in writing placed on record by any of the UGC officials with whom these 5 accused persons worked. That the same was confirmed by the superior of accused person with whom they worked also in their deposition U/s.164 Cr.P.C. dated 03.09.2025, and the superiors with whom the accused persons have worked have given satisfactory report and good remarks were given in ACR of the Accused Persons and some of the section officers have written that these accused persons were very sincere and dedicated and wants to retain them with him.
36. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Attendance, OMR sheet, typing test sheet etc. are in the control, custody and possession of Edcil and UGC and therefore, there is no access to the said documents for doing any forgery on these documents, therefore, there is no question of using such alleged forged documents as original and therefore, section 471 of IPC is not attracted. That is why IO also did not invoke section 471 IPC in Charge Sheet though it was initially written in the FIR. That prosecution fails to prove that on what documents the forgery was done by the accused persons and the nature and character of the documents changed after the alleged forgery. Since there is no conspiracy, there is no impersonation also and the prosecution case is totally demolished and no alleged IPC sections are attached.
37. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it is falsely stated that there were oral complaints against these 5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 52 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:45:25 +0530 Accused Persons that their typing performance is not upto the mark but not able to identify any superior with whom these accused worked allegedly made any oral Complaint. This is a fabricated story made to throw out the five Accused Persons for the aforesaid reasons and also because they are from very poor family background. That these allegation are totally in contradiction with ACR/ Performance Appraisal Performa placed on record by the independent UGC witness.
38. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in order to throw out the above 5 persons a false complaint dated 13.07.2015 made by Ajay Kumar Khanduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC that their typing performance was not up to the mark and a surprise typing test was conducted on 18.03.2014, in the said surprise typing test, these accused Persons got passed. That the result of this internal typing test was neither communicated to the accused persons nor published in the UGC Notice board nor filed in the court record, which also created doubt that the said test was conducted only on the 5 accused persons to make them scape goats for the aforesaid reasons.
39. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused persons are made scape goats so that once these accused persons would be terminated, those who are lower in the rank in the merit list, who are interested people of UGC Officials can be appointed in their places; the contractual typing workers can be retained and the balance payment to Edcil can be delayed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 53 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:45:55 +0530
40. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that after internal typing test their specimen thumb impression and signature which were taken by UGC and forwarded to Edcil and sent to CFSL Shimla with the handwriting, specimen signatures and thumb impressions. That documents sent to Shimla and there is no report of CFSL Shimla against Rishi Nath Prasad. That all the witnesses FIR, chargesheet proceeding under a wrong notion that there is a report from CFSL Shimla against Rishi Nath Prasad, whereas there is no such report. That D3 is a CFSL report dated 27.10.2014 on Rishinath and Anand Kumar Maurya. That all expert witnesses testimony in these cases are neither credible and trust worthy nor corroborated and their opinion are advisory in nature and this Hon'ble Court is not bound by it. That Mr. A.D. Shah who had given 3 reports including for Anand Kumar Maurya and Rishinath Prasad that he admitted in his 164 Cr.P.C.
statement dated 14.02.2025 that the report so is given at the instance of CBI IO (Kuldeep Singh), meaning thereby the IO has influenced him for giving such desired reports and therefore, these reports are not impartial and cannot be relied upon. That based on the aforesaid story, a false FIR was lodged U/s. 120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC read with 13(2(d)) and 13(1(d)) of P.C. Act.
41. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the investigation officer did a defective investigation as he admittedly did not visit the five centers, where the five accused attended the written examination. The IO was also not sure ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 54 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:47:22 +0530 whether he visited the MGM College Noida where the typing test was conducted. He also admitted that he had not examined any invigilator and Centre Superintendent nor recorded their statements. It was also further admitted neither the invigilators of MGM College nor the Centre Superintendent of MGM College nor any of the UGC Officials who had verified the documents were either made the witness or accused persons. He further stated that he was not sure whether any of the UGC Officials to whom the accused persons were directly reporting were examined or not. That IO also admitted that he did not check the ACR/ performance appraisal of the Accused persons, therefore, it is crystal clear that the entire prosecution story is fabricated by him sitting at the CBI office. That IO also admitted that he did not find any incriminating documents against the Accused persons or against anybody else except those documents provided by UGC and Edcil. That it is also admitted by the IO that all the Accused Persons where summoned to CBI office and interrogated for many times for 5 to 6 hours per day, most of the time the Accused persons appeared before him in the CBI office. He further admitted that during the Police custody of 2 days also no incriminating documents were recovered. He further admitted that there is no criminal conspiracy between the Accused Persons. He further admitted that no impersonator was identified or found. He again further admitted that no involvement of UGC and EdCIL Officials were found involved in the case. He further admitted that there was no forgery committed by any accused persons in the OMR sheet, Typing test result and document ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 55 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:47:30 +0530 verification sheets. He further admitted that he did not go through any CFSL Report after filing the Charge sheet, He further stated that he had examined most of the officials of UGC and still not made them as witness meaning thereby that there is no impersonation that is why none of these officials were made an accused. That IO deliberately did not make any of the UGC Officials as witnesses though they had verified the documents to deliberately and falsely prosecute the Accused persons. That, therefore, total investigation conducted by IO is a defective one. IO further admitted in his cross examination that he examined all the UGC officials who conducted document verification on the day of Typing Test but no statement of any such UGC officials filed in court, nor any involvement or any impersonator was doubted therefore none of these 10 UGC officials were made as witnesses.
42. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution also did not doubt the involvement of any officials connected with any stage of exam if so, officials connected with that stage of exams would have been made as Accused. That, therefore, alleged impersonation is impossible. That the simultaneous allegation that alleged impersonation took place though all the officials connected with the exams have no role is blowing 'hot and cold' at the same breadth.
43. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that during arrest, the mobile phone of accused was checked thoroughly and not any incriminating evidence was found, nor ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 56 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:47:36 +0530 did any involvement doubted, therefore, the mobile phone was not ceased and not sent to CFSL for identifying any proof. No CDR (Call Detail Record) and no phone location was also filed. That no map of alleged place of incidence filed on record.
44. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that complete file of each accused was given to IO, whereas IO/UGC officials did not deliberately file the ACR/Performance Appraisal Performa because the same was a good and which would create a dent the story of prosecution. The ACR/ Performance Assessment Performa signed by both Reporting and Reviewing officers stated that his computer skill and typing speed is 8 out of
10. That the ACR produced by the defense witnesses are sufficient to dent the prosecution story.
45. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that to prove an allegation of impersonation, it is not alleged by the prosecution that any friend or relative of the Accused Persons have appeared in any of the examinations or any money/ consideration was given to anybody else for the same. No money trail or bank transaction or bank account transfer was found. That these accused Persons are so poor that why there were made the scape goat in the present matter. Not even a single alleged impersonator was identified or found because there is none. That till date no impersonator is identified or found. That IO has admitted that attendance sheet and documents verification Check List has photographs. That therefore, impersonation is practically impossible.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 57 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:47:44 +0530
46. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that document D10 is the document that is typing test sheet dated 08.12.2013. This document is having signatures of 4 officials, therefore, it is impossible to do impersonation at this stage also. Mr. G.D. Bisht was the person who examined the typing test conducted on 07/08.12.2013, was not an expert nor any documents of typing examination test passed test certificate was produced. He was not even examined. Though there was specific direction by UGC to engage an expert for typing test result examination. Mr. G.D. Bisht didn't possess the required training nor had any such certificate of qualification regarding typing Lower or Higher of exam passed was provided nor he was examined as a witness to those typing results to prove his qualification for this purpose. That it is the same in case of internal typing test also that Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj is not an expert for conducting typing test as he has not passed the required typing exam nor placed on record any such certificate having passed the Lower or Higher Typing Exam. That therefore these typing test results are not wholly reliable. This is the document relied by prosecution against the accused.
47. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that no section officer with whom the accused worked were neither summoned nor interrogated nor their statement was recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. except of Sher Singh Yadav with whom only accused Anand Kumar Maurya has worked.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 58 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:47:51 +0530
48. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the CFSL reports and the statements of the CFSL experts are not reliable because the reports are completely inconsistent and full of contradiction and is admittedly a 'cut and paste' report prepared by the Stenographer from the previous reports as per the testimony of A.D. Shah dated 14.02.2025.
49. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no disclosure statement of any accused placed on record.
50. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that when the UGC officials who stated in their 164 statements looking at the photographs and photo Ids, the same persons who appeared before him at the time of documents verification of typing exam and also at the time of joining in the UGC are the same and therefore, there is no ground for disbelieving their statements and their statements are completely reliable, therefore, there is also no question of impersonation. That the statement of all defense witnesses was recorded on 03.09.2025 and their statements dated 03.09.2025 are not dented in cross examination by prosecution.
51. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that when all the officials connected with all stages of exam categorically stated that there is no impersonation and cheating etc. in the recruitment examination, it is impossible to believe when and how the alleged impersonation is possible. No ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 59 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:47:59 +0530 satisfactory answer so far by anyone i.e. Edcil and UGC or prosecution regarding the alleged impersonation.
52. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that document verification check list having photographs, checked and signed by UGC officials Pankaj Chandana and also other UGC official Babita Gupta (D9) also proved that there was no impersonation as alleged or otherwise. That there is also no evidence that accused connived with any of the persons/ officials connected with the examination nor the I.O. suspected the same therefore none of them were made an accused in the present case.
53. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that investigation throughout is inconsistent, shoddy and defective.
54. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in internal typing test result dated 18.03.2014 conducted by UGC result clearly written that accused person Rishi Nath Prasad have 'Passed' the exam (D13), where the accused have got net speed of 18 words per minute with 89 percent accuracy. Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj didn't possess the required training nor had any such certificate of qualification regarding typing lower or Higher of exam passed was provided though was he examined as a witness to those typing results to prove his qualification for this purpose. Here also he signed with "N" capital for "Nath".
55. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in CFSL Delhi Report dated 27.04.2016 and 08.11.2016 it is stated ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 60 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:48:06 +0530 that documents examined are original by A.D. Shah, whereas in the CFSL Delhi report dated 27.10.2014 by the same author that is AD Shah has not written that the documents are original, therefore the said report cannot be relied upon, Whereas extensive reasons are given by the defense why the other two reports i.e. reports dated 27.04.2016 and 08.11.2016 are also totally not reliable. That even if the original documents/reports is on record, it has no effect if the forwarding letter/report from the CFSL does not substantiate the same.
56. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused persons can rely upon all documents filed by the prosecution to dent the prosecution case. That same false and contradictory story is stated in chargesheet at para 16.12 it has been specifically observed that during the investigation, no evidence of conspiracy between UGC officials or any other Public Servants with the accused persons has come on record. No role of any public servant has been established during investigation. Whereas in para 16.2 it is alleged accused persons in conspiracy with each other and with some unknown persons committed fraud on UGC. Serious investigation lapses that rendered the prosecution evidence not trustworthy.
57. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that out of the five accused persons 4 have challenged their illegal termination from service before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. That the same is still pending for the final adjudication.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 61 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:48:15 +0530
58. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that CFSL report cannot be sole basis of conviction, it has to be corroborated with independent substantive evidence.
59. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in D7 is the attendance dated 25.08.2013 having the photographs also of Accused Rishinath Prasad, The said document is signed by the invigilator Jayshree Das after verifying the identity of the candidate, therefore, this document and the signatures and thumb impression are that of accused Rishi Nath Prasad. That signature is having over writing and render it incapable of examination, this aspect is not reflected in the report dated 15.11.2018. That the signature on D7 page no.2 i.e. OMR sheet is different from the signature on D7 page no.1, both are of the same person on the same date, therefore it is also probable that a person may sign differently on the same day, therefore studying only one signature and giving a report is unsafe. That at D7 page no.1 "nath" portion of the signatures- N and A are capital letters whereas in page no.2 in Nath portion of the signature only N is capital. That this person is in the habit of writing N capital and n small at different places. That the same person had signed differently in the same day, this aspect is not considered in the CFSL Report for example signature on D7 Page no.1 attendance sheet of writing test and D7 Page no.2 OMR sheet of the same date. That the attendance sheet as well as OMR sheet there are signatures of the invigilators. Therefore, it can be believed that no impersonation took place at this stage. At D8, attendance ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 62 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:48:22 +0530 sheet of typing test dated 08.12.2013, chances of interpolation between thumb impressions of candidates below is not ruled out by examining the thumb impression of other adjacent candidates. That "Prasad" portion of the signature is merging with Thumb impression of D8 Page 1 and 2 in both (pages), this aspect is not reflected in the signature report and thumb impression report. Both signatures have the sign of the invigilators.
60. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that none of the statements of defense witnesses were dented in the cross examination by the prosecution therefore their deposition stood proved. Whereas the deposition of all prosecution witness were dented in cross examine by Defense counsel.
61. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no CFSL Shimla Report against the Accused Rishinath Prasad.
62. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that if two versions/views are possible, one in favor of the accused should be preferred.
63. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in the CFSL, Delhi report dated 27.10.2014 forwarding letter dated 07.11.2014 is not stated as original report. That it is not stated anywhere in the report that report is based on the examination of original documents. That CFSL report at para 4 it is clearly stated that documents are received in unsealed condition, so the chances ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 63 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:48:37 +0530 of tempering the documents before reaching CFSL is not ruled out. No reason is provided for sending the report in unsealed condition in this report. That no comparative study is between document D9 and D10 to know the alleged one person impersonated or more. There is no mention in the report that the questioned thumb impression QD-34, on attendance sheet dated 07.12.2013 on document verification at (D8) page no.1 and 2. a portion of signature 'Prasad' is merged with thumb impression, this facts is not reflected in this report in both signature and thumb impression report, making this report totally unreliable.
That report is based on photocopies and therefore cannot be relied upon because the author of the report AD Shah categorically stated that his other two reports dated 24.07.2016 and 08.11.2016 are based on original documents, had these documents been original, he would have specifically stated so. Now the report is factually incorrect because the credentials of the witness AD Shah is doubtful regarding the experience and other datas he has stated in his testimony. That all the CFSL Delhi Report by AD Shah is full of contradictions and inconsistency and admittedly a cut and paste by steno from previous reports and factually also incorrect. These reports are neither credible nor corroborated and their opinion are advisory in nature and this Hon'ble court is not bound by it. That he has not given whether QD9 and QD10 is different from "LTS5". No report is given regarding QD34. That the complete report details of all the five accused persons is reproduced, is cut and paste in the next 2 reports with regard to QD9 and QD10, whereas QD34 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 64 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:48:44 +0530 is blurred and smugged, that the same language is copied in the next report also, making all the three reports being cut and Past, unreliable. That no notes prepared at the time of examination of documents is filed on record nor there a mentioned of the same in his report. That even the typing error of Pawan Kumar shown as "Sh. Sh." Pawan Kumar appeared in this report in page no.3 of Para 5(b) is repeated as it is in cut and paste in the report dated 08.11.2016 at page no.2 at para2 (b). This shows the complete report is prepared by the Stenographer without undertaking any examination and A.D. Shah has blindly signed it without reading it once. That due to these reasons also these reports are unsafe to be relied upon for forming a definite opinion.
64. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the report of CFSL, Delhi report dated 27.04.2016 is as such is not reliable because it is substantially copied from cut and paste from the previous report dated 27.04.2016. That in this report also no comparative study conducted between QD9 and QD10 and only a bold statement is made that is QD9 and QD10 are different from specimen left thumb impression. It is also not stated that QD9 and QD10 are left thumb impression or right thumb impression, whereas it is written that QD34 is blurred and is not capable of giving an opinion. That no reasoning is given regarding how he arrived at this opinion.
65. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that report of CFSL Delhi dated 08.11.2016 is not reliable because in this report an attempt is made to compare the left thumb impression ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 65 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:48:50 +0530 with right thumb impression, admittedly the same can never be matched. That this report also categorically states that original documents received, whereas the CFSL Delhi Report dated 27.10.2014 on Rishi Nath Prasad and Anand Maurya by the same author AD Shah does not say original documents received meaning thereby he had not received and examined the original documents. That the fact regarding merging a portion of signature with thumb impression is not mentioned in this report or in the CFSL report dated 15.11.2018, making both the reports unreliable at D8 page no.1. That all the reports authored by A.D. Shah is admittedly a cut and paste report prepared by steno and AD Shah signed it without reading and understanding it. That portion of signature is merging with thumb impression, this fact is not reflected in the said report, making this report unreliable. That the cut and pasting is done in such a way that the serial numbers, selection and placing of words and sentences and each line of the reports are same in these report with the previous A.D. Report, as these reports are mechanically copied by the Stenographer and A.D. Shah signed it without application of mind making it totally unreliable. That no comparative study between thumb impression on attendance sheet on writing, typing and documents verification done in this report. That there is no logic in comparing the left thumb impression with the right thumb impression because the author A.D. Shah admitted in his testimony dated 14.02.2025 that the Left thumb Impression can never be matched with right thumb impression yet he conducted the same at the behest of IO CBI, as the IO seems to be bent up ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 66 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:48:57 +0530 on to convict these Accused Persons, with his false and fabricated stories. That therefore this report is of no consequences. That result of this report cannot be based for forming an opinion against an accused because admittedly left thumb impression can never be matched with right thumb impression.
66. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the forwarding letter dated 26.11.2018 of CFSL, Delhi report dated 15.11.2018 authored by N.B Bardhan, Director, CFSL, Delhi, CBI, authorized Shri AD Shah and Shri Anil Sharma to release this report. Whereas this report is only based on signatures.
Whereas AD Shah is an alleged expert in thumb impression, therefore, even the forwarding letter is also cut and paste from the previous letter without application of mind that is why a fingerprint expert is authorized to release a signature report. That itself makes the report unreliable and discredit the prosecution story based upon these reports. That it is not stated anywhere in the report that examination of signature is conducted of original documents. That in Rishinath case only Q17 signature was examined with the specimen. That it is also not stated what is Q17. That there are 3 points of discussion for giving the opinion and it is not stated anywhere in the report that a portion of signatures is merging with the thumb impression at D8 page no.1 and vice versa that whether such merger would be material in giving the opinion. Only general observations are given in the report regarding the opinion arrived at. No details or description ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 67 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:03 +0530 of documents examined such as attendance sheet on writing test, typing, OMR sheet, documents verification etc. Refer para 5 at page no. 2, not stated anywhere in the report that which documents belongs to whom. He knew that he was doing examination of photocopies still did not demand original by a separate letter before conducting the examination, therefore such practice is unprofessional and the report is completely unreliable. That he has also stated in the last para of the report that to arrive at a correct opinion original documents with more specimen writing and signatures are required and still he gave the reports on photocopies. That he also admitted in his cross examination dated 01.04.2025 that he gives opinion on photocopies. That notes prepared at the time of examination of documents not filed on record nor there is a mention in the report that notes were prepared. Which proves that no examination of documents conducted before preparing the reports. That there is no mentioned in the report that there is overwriting in the signature Q17, that is the attendance sheet, that over writing on the signature itself would make the signature ineligible for examination, even the OMR sheet is not examined. That therefore the ground 2 and 3 in arriving at the opinion makes it meaningless because the author of this signature is in the habit of writing the portion of the signature "nath" in small and Capital "Nath" and the documents i.e. attendance sheet on writing dated 25.08.2013 and the same dated OMR sheet by the same person is having different signatures, therefore, his report is totally unreliable. That there are many other documents on record which ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 68 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:10 +0530 is having the Nath portion of the signature in capital "Nath" and "nath" in small letters, all these aspects are completely ignored in this report, that also makes the report totally unreliable. That these inconsistency and contradiction make the entire prosecution case so weak and it merits only dismissal. That this written submission may kindly be treated as part and in addition to the oral arguments already advanced.
67. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon various judgments which are as follows:-
a) Narender Kumar Vs. MGMT of M/s Maman Chand Ramji Das, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 693, of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
b) Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,(2010) 2 SCC 748, of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
c) N. Chinnasamy Vs. P.S. Swaminathan, 2006 (4) CTC 850, of Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
d) Dayal Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263, of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
68. 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.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 69 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:20 +0530 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
69. The main point of contention in the present case is that the accused had been selected as LDC in UGC on the basis of written/skill/typing test held by UGC through Edcil and the accused did not appeared for the said exam and some unknown person appeared on his behalf i.e. some unknown person impersonated the accused in the examination and got cleared the examination on the basis of which the accused has got the job as LDC in UGC.
70. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there were no chances of impersonation by the accused during the examination as the identity of the accused had been checked at various stages before, at the time of and after giving the exam. It is further argued that Invigilators of the examination centres had given the certificate that exam was conducted peacefully without any case of the impersonation, cheating or disturbance, any leakage of question papers during the conduct of examination. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that there are no complaint regarding allegations of impersonation by any of the accused persons filed by any person/invigilator/Centre Superintendent/Edcil officials/UGC officials at the time of conduct of written/skill/typing test. This fact arises when the oral complaints have been received from certain officers regarding under performance of newly appointed LDCs and the internal typing test was conducted by UGC in which the five LDCs including the accused failed in the examination and their ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 70 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:27 +0530 specimen signatures were sent to Edcil for comparison and reports of CFSL regarding mismatch of signatures.
71. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution fails to prove any kind of written/oral complaint against the accused by any of the UGC officials and also failed to examine any witness who had made complaint against the accused. The official file of UGC Ex.PW5/B page no.18 contains the note-sheet in respect of the conduct of internal typing test. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that result of internal typing test was never communicated to accused. The reason of not communicating the result of internal typing is self-explained that this exam was conducted internally to check their performance and this exam is not conducted to give them any promotion or any other kind of benefits.
72. After the failure of the accused in internal typing test, the specimen signatures of the accused were taken and sent to Edcil for comparison with the signatures obtained during written/skill/typing test of the accused persons and as per the CFSL Report, same were not matched and found to be different. The CFSL, Shimla report Ex.PW7/A established that some other unknown person appeared on behalf of the accused in written/skill/typing test conducted by Edcil.
73. The present case is mainly based upon the reports of the expert witnesses. The handwriting report by PW9 Anil Sharma is Ex.PW9/A(colly) have duly established that the signatures ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 71 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:34 +0530 appearing against the name of accused on attendance sheet Q17 does not belong to accused rather of some unknown person.
74. It is settled law that for the admissibility of forensic reports, the protection of chain of custody of the documents examined by the expert has to be kept intact. Regarding the proper chain of custody of questioned documents, it has been duly established by the seizure memos and the independent witnesses (PW3, PW4 and PW5) to these seizure memos. PW8 and PW9 have duly identified the forwarding letters through which the questioned documents and specimens were received in their laboratories/divisions and their official stamps on the questioned documents as well as the specimen signatures/thumb impressions which were received in their laboratories/divisions. PW4 and PW5 duly proved the transmission of the results of CFSL reports as well as the original CFSL reports by Edcil to UGC.
75. Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Kamalakkannan v. State of T.N. (2025) 4 SCC 487, held that the opinion of expert, handwriting or of any other kind of expert had to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him and the methodology adopted by him. In the present case, no question or suggestion has been put to the expert witnesses by the Ld. Defence Counsel during cross-examination of PW8 and PW9 pertaining to their reasons which are detailed in nature and duly formed the part of their opinions Ex.PW8/C(colly), Ex.PW8/D(colly) and Ex. PW9/A(colly) and pertaining to the methodology adopted by ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 72 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:49:40 +0530 them. Ld. Defence counsel only cross-examined and pointed out the contradictions on the experiences etc. as well as minor clerical and arithmetical mistakes in the reports.
76. It is also a settled law that the specimen signatures and thumb impressions has to be obtained from the accused voluntarily and without any force, coercion or pressure. PW2 and PW6 duly established that the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of the accused has been obtained voluntarily. The accused also identified his own signatures, LTIs and writings Ex. PW3/J which he had given to UGC on 26.05.2014.
77. The handwriting reports/thumb impressions reports also established that it was not the accused who had appeared in the examination dated 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013. The thumb impressions reports Ex.PW8/C(colly) and Ex. PW8/D(colly) duly established that LTIs QD9 and QD10 of accused on attendance sheet/ document verification dated 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013 are different from the specimen LTIs of accused Ex. PW6/B(colly) and specimen RTIs of the accused Ex. PW2/A(colly). It is also admitted fact that the LTI and RTI of the one person never matches but the IO had got the LTIs QD9 and QD10 of the accused examined with specimen RTIs of the accused to rule out the possibility that accused might have mistakenly put his RTI instead of LTI on the attendance sheet/document verification, which is fair to the accused. In the fingerprints report of PW8, no opinion has been expressed upon QD34 with reasons that the questioned thmb impressions being ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 73 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:49:47 +0530 smudged/blurred, which raises credibility of the report and negated the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that the said reports have been prepared at the behest of the IO to convict the accused.
78. It is also pertinent to mention that no opinion has been given by the experts on the photocopies or the reproduced copies. The opinion given on Q9, Q10 and Q17 has been rendered on original documents. PW8 and PW9 during their examination duly identified the documents on which they have given their respective reasoned opinions and duly deposed that no opinion has been given on the documents which were mere photocopies. The defence taken by the accused that the reports are based on mere photocopies are not tenable.
79. It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that document D-18 at page 3, Para 9 sub-point (i) & (ii), shows that no typing work was given to the accused and he had only given file processing work. During his cross-examination, accused deposed that his speed drastically decreased since typing test conducted on 07.12.2013 to the internal typing test conducted by UGC on 18.03.2014, as he was not assigned any typing work at UGC. However, ACR brought on record by the defence in their defence evidence also shows that accused had been given 8 out of 10 for the typing speed and typing speed is mentioned 32 wpm (words per minute).
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 74 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:49:54 +0530
80. It has been argued by Ld. Defence counsel that it is not the case here that the accused did not know the typing at all rather the case is that he had not performed well in the internal typing test. He further argued that the internal typing test result sheet dated 12.02.2014 which shows that he had passed the exam with 82% accuracy. However, the noting on page no. 2 and 9 of Ex. PW5/B shows that accused had failed the internal typing test and accuracy depends on the words typed by him.
81. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the five LDCs including the accused were made scapegoats to retain the contractual workers and to appoint candidate lower in the rank of the merit list. However, the accused fails to prove as to why only these five LDCs including the accused were made the scapegoats and not the other LDCs who were appointed alongwith them. The defence fails to show any enmity of these five LDCs including the accused with any of the UGC officials or any other person to show as to why they were only made scapegoats in their batch.
82. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the present complaint Ex. PW 1/A has been falsely filed with the CBI merely to delay the remaining payment to Edcil as a result of which some employees including the present accused have been made scapegoat. This defence being raised by the accused is only illusory and far-fetched as it appears from the record itself i.e. official noting present at page 17-18 of file Ex. PW 5/B (D-14), that the balance payment of Rs. 1,39,48,942/- out of a ___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 75 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:50:02 +0530 total payment of Rs. 9,80,72,497/- was deferred due to the fact that prior to filing of the complaint UGC did not rule out the possibility of involvement of Edcil officials in the alleged impersonation. It was for this very reason that it was decided to keep the balance payment under abeyance till the matter is resolved. Moreover, it is not the defence of the accused that the aforestated balance payment is still remaining to be paid to Edcil and no evidence has been adduced to this aspect on the behalf of accused.
83. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that IO has conducted inconsistent, shoddy and defective investigation as he had neither examined any invigilator, Centre Superintendent nor recorded their statement nor made them witness in the present case. The defence always had the opportunity to examine the invigilator or the Centre superintendent in their defence, if not examined by the IO during investigation or by the prosecution during their evidence.
84. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh. G.D. Bisht and Sh. R.I.S. Bhardwaj didn't possess the required expertise to check the typing test. However, the result of the typing test was never challenged by the accused. Moreover, the accused had himself admitted that he had performed poorly in the internal typing test as he was out or practice since he joined UGC and on the basis of typing test checked by Sh. G. D. Bisht, he had joined the service in UGC.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 76 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:50:09 +0530
85. It has been further argued that document D7 i.e. attendance sheet of writing test dated 25.08.2013 having thumb impressions of five more candidates on the same page, so there are chances of interpolation with regard to the thumb impression of other candidates and this fact is not ruled out. This arguments of defence counsel holds no water as when the alleged signature of the accused is in front of his name then the alleged thumb impressions shall also be of the same person in front of his name.
86. The accused had filed the copy of one Computer Centre, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda through which he claimed his typing speed as 39 wpm. However, the original of the said document never seen the light of the day and no witness from the said institute has been examined by the accused to prove the said document. Moreover, the accused admitted during his cross-examination that his speed is very low in the internal test taken by the UGC.
87. All the experts opinions corroborates and supports each other's findings to the effect that the accused was not the person who appeared for the written test conducted on 25.08.2013 and skill typing test conducted on 87.12.2013. It is settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above that the science of identification of finger prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non- existent. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 77 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:50:16 +0530 CONCLUSION
88. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has successfully proved the charges u/s 120B r/w Section 419, 420 and 471 IPC and substantive offences under section 419, 420 and 471 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Rishi Nath Prasad is hereby convicted for the offences u/s 120B r/w Section 419, 420 and 471 IPC and substantive offences under section 419, 420 and 471 IPC.
89. Let copy of judgment be given to the convict free of costs.
90. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by MAYANK GOEL MAYANK Date:
GOEL 2025.12.11
14:50:25
+0530
Announced in Open Court (MAYANK GOEL)
on 11th of December, 2025 ACJM-02-cum-ACJ
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI
___________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/51/2019 Page No. 78 of 78 RC-DAI/2015/A0027 CBI vs. RISHI NATH PRASAD