Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Rajeev Ranjan on 11 December, 2025
____________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK GOEL
ACJM-02-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
____________________________________________________
CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN
Case No. : CC No. CBI/50/2019
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. : DLCT120001472019
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri,
Deputy Secretary, UGC,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
Name, parentage & address : Rajeev Ranjan
of the accused S/o Sh. Devendra Kumar
Village & Post Hilsa PS
Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda,
Bihar-801302
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/50/2019 Page No. 1 of 83
RC-DAI-2015-A0027
Digitally signed
CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.12.11
14:51:21 +0530
Counsels for the parties:
Sh. Arjun Anand, Ld. APP for the CBI.
Sh. K.P. Toms, Ld. counsel for accused Rajeev Ranjan.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rajeev Ranjan was sent by the CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 419 and substantive offence u/s 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, Pappu Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan and Rishi Nath __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 2 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:51:28 +0530 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 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 3 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:51:35 +0530 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.
4. During investigation it has been further revealed that accused Rajeev Ranjan was offered appointment for the post of LDC in UGC and in pursuance thereof he submitted his acceptance letter dated 31.01.2014 and joined UGC and submitted his attestation form, identity certificate, declaration, character certificate and medical report on the same day in the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 4 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:51:42 +0530 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 Rajeev Ranjan had applied online vide registered Reference no. 10144719 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 1143960 bearing signatures in the name of Rajeev Ranjan have been seized. He was asked to appear in skill/ typing test on 07.12.2013 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 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 34.54 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 14 w.p.m. Thereafter, UGC suspected fraud and Sh. R.I.S. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 5 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:51:49 +0530 Bhardwaj, OS, UGC took specimen handwriting/thumb impression/specimen signature of candidate Rajeev Ranjan S-5, S-5/1, S-5/2, S-6 and S-6/1 on 26.05.2014 on one sheet and the same was sent to CFSL Shimla 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. CFSL Shimla vide its report BX-10/2014 dated 04.07.2014 opined that signature Q-9 i.e. signature in the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013 and Q-10 i.e. signature in the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013 have not been written by the person who wrote writing and signature S-5, S-5/1, S-6 and S-6/1. CFSL Shimla has not expressed any opinion on Q-11 and Q-12 i.e. signature in the name of Rajeev Ranjan on and handwriting on OMR answer sheet no. 1143960, Q-25 i.e. signatures in the name of Rajeev Ranjan on typing test sheet conducted by UGC dated 19.03.2014 and Q-26 i.e. signatures in the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013.
6. During investigation, the specimen signatures S-41 to S-50 and specimen left thumb impressions S-51 to S-60 of Rajeev Ranjan on 12.01.2016 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-5 (left thumb impression against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet documents verification of written test) dated __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 6 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:51:57 +0530 25.08.2013, QD-6 (left thumb impression against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet of typing test) dated 08.12.2013 and QD-32 (left thumb impression against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet documents verification of skill test) dated 08.12.2013 are different from specimen thumb impression S-51 to S-60. However, right thumb impression of accused Rajeev Ranjan serial no. S121 to S130 have also been for the sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi for comparison with questioned thumb impression. During the investigation, accused Rajeev Ranjan 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 7 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:06 +0530 EVIDENCE
10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eleven (11) 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 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 on page no. 12 and 13 of document D-16 i.e. one personal file no. F.1-12/2014 (Admin-I/C) of accused and are Mark A and Mark B. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW1 deposed that accused Rajeev Ranjan never worked under him and he did not receive any complaint from the superior of accused Rajeev Ranjan with whom the accused was working, regarding his work performance. He further deposed that it is correct that nothing is mentioned about the thumb __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 8 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:52:13 +0530 impression in the original report no. BX-10/2014-438 dated 15.07.2014 of CFSL, Shimla.
(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 was not upto the mark. Edcil sent certain forensic reports as per __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 9 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:20 +0530 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 is Ex.PW3/A(OSR). The production- cum-seizure memo dated 02.11.2015 is Ex.PW3/B(colly)(02 pages)(OSR) regarding handing over of original attendance sheet and OMR sheet of written examination conducted on 25.08.2013 (Ex. PW3/C(colly)(02 pages) and original attendance sheet of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 (Ex. PW3/D(colly)(02 pages), original checklist of verification of documents during typing test conducted on 08.12.2013(Ex. PW3/E), original report of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013(Ex. PW3/F), original attestation form produced by the accused at the time of joining UGC(Ex. PW3/G(colly)(14 pages), original identity card of UGC(Ex. PW3/H), original report of typing test conducted by UGC in March 2014(Ex. PW3/I), original specimen signatures/handwriting, left thimb impression of the accused taken by the UGC in May,2014(Ex. PW3/J). The seizure memo dated 08.02.2016 is Ex. PW3/K(OSR). The copy of file no. F-5- 1/99(Admin. 1/C, Part file) i.e. note portion of file regarding test of new LDCs is Ex. PW3/L(colly)(OSR). 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).
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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 10 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:27 +0530 against any of LDCs. There were oral complaints. 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). 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 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 11 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:34 +0530 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 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). The letter __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 12 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:47 +0530 dated 01.12.2014 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC is Ex.PW4/C(colly)(3 pages)(OSR). 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). The letter dated 04.03.2015 of Edcil addressed to Sh. Ajay Kumar Khaduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC is Ex.PW4/E(colly) (OSR). 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 (Ex.PW4/G(colly)(8 pages) is Ex.PW4/F(OSR). The production- cum-seizure memo of print out of e-admit card of accused Rajeev Ranjan (Ex.PW4/I), print out of application for recruitment to the post of LDC of accused Rajeev Ranjan (Ex. PW4/J), print out of emails/letters between Edcil and UGC(Ex.PW4/K(colly)(7 pages), copy of proforma for co-ordinator/observer for the written examination dated 25.08.2013 (Ex.PW4/L(colly)(9 pages)(OSR) and copy of certificate u/s 65B IEA (Ex.PW4/M(OSR), is Ex.PW4/H(OSR).
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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 13 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:52:54 +0530 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 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 14 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:53:01 +0530 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 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) and the copy of bunch of lose papers having correspondence between Edcil and UGC(Ex.PW5/C(colly)(15pages)(OSR), is Ex.PW5/A (OSR). The personal file no. F.1-12/2014(Admin I/C) of accused Rajeev Ranjan is Ex.PW5/D(colly)(33 pages).
PW5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW5 deposed that it is correct that UGC had sent 12 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 15 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:53:09 +0530 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 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, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 16 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:53:16 +0530 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 Rajeev Ranjan is Ex.
PW6/A(colly)(10 pages). The left thumb impressions of accused Rajeev Ranjan 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 details of the case except that he got to know that the case pertained to cheating in some clerical exam.
(g) PW-7 R.S. Rana deposed that the documents of this case were received in the laboratory in Shimla from Deputy Manager(Vigilance) Edcil vide letter no. EdCIL-IMS-SP-Test- (291-1)/UGC/2013 dated 13.06.2014. After careful examination, he had expressed his opinion vide opinion/report no. BX-10/2014 dated 04.07.2014 which is Ex.PW7/A(colly)(5 pages).
PW7 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW7 deposed that it is correct that he had examined only the handwriting and the signatures and not the thumb impressions. It is correct that none of the writings and signatures were taken in his presence nor he personally know these accused persons. It is correct that OMR sheet is a photocopy. The questioned document bearing Q 11 and Q12 were received in __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 17 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:53:23 +0530 their office. He had examined the OMR sheet but could not express an opinion as it was a mere photocopy. Despite his request, the original document of Q 11 and Q 12 are not sent to him due to which opinion could be given on it. The questioned document bearing Q25 and Q26 were received in their office. He had examined these documents but could not express an opinion as they were a mere photocopy. Despite his request, the original document of Q26 and Q26 are not sent to him due to which opinion could be given on it.
(h) PW-8 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 typning 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 18 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:53:29 +0530 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 forwarded the said report to the UGC.
PW8 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW8 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 record, the typing __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 19 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:53:36 +0530 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.
(i) PW-9 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.PW9/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.PW9/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.PW9/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.PW9/D(colly) (5 pages)(OSR).
PW9 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW9 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 document containing right thumb impression of any of the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 20 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:53:44 +0530 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. It is correct that the result of comparing questioned documents containing the left thumb impressions with the specimen containing right thumb impressions can never be the same. It is correct that despite that he still compared and have given the report as his opinion was sought by the investigating agency.
(j) PW-10 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.PW10/A(colly)(10 pages)(OSR).
PW10 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW10 deposed that the report Ex.PW10/A(colly)(10 pages)(OSR) 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 21 of 83 Digitally signed RC-DAI-2015-A0027 by MAYANK CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:53:56 +0530 documents were received in the year 2016 whereas the report was prepared in 2018. During 2016-2018, the documents remain 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.PW10/A(colly)(10 pages)(OSR), 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 22 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:54:05 +0530 specimen signatures was not put by him but it was done by the Assistant in his presence.
(k) PW-11 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.PW11/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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 23 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:54:12 +0530 test conducted by UGC along with other relevant documents. The 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. PW11/B(colly)(12 pages).
PW11 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused and PW11 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/50/2019 Page No. 24 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:54:18 +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/50/2019 Page No. 25 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:54:26 +0530 STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC
11. After examination of the witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Ld. APP on 18.01.2025. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. 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 without the aid, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 26 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:57:30 +0530 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 delay their remaining payment and that is how his job was terminated.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 27 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:57:39 +0530 DEFENCE EVIDENCE
12. In his defence, the accused examined four (04) witnesses including himself:-
(a) DW1 Rajeev Ranjan/Accused 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 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. APP 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 28 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 14:57:45 +0530 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) 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 29 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:57:53 +0530 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 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 invigilator 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 Anil Kumar 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 30 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:00 +0530 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. APP 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 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 31 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:07 +0530 DW3 was not cross-examined by Ld. APP for CBI despite opportunity being given.
(d) DW4 Suresh Kumar Gupta 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. APP for CBI and deposed that since the day accused had been working under him, he was doing typing work also amongst other work. He had awarded 8 marks on the scale of 10 in the typing speed performance of the accused as he used to see his work. The accused was performing satisfactorily.
13. Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was later on fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
14. I have heard the Ld. APP for CBI and Ld. counsel for the accused.
15. Ld. APP for the CBI submitted that the present RC came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint dt. 13.07.2015 of Sh. Ajay Kumar Khanduri, Deputy Secretary, UGC, New Delhi u/s 120-B r/w 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & S. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against Rajeev Ranjan, amongst others __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 32 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed by CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:14 +0530 known as well as unknown private persons and public servants.
16. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that the main crux of the allegation was that accused Rajeev Ranjan had secured appointment with the UGC as an LDC on the basis of writing test conducted on 25.08.2013 and skill/typing test conducted on 08.12.2013. Both these tests were gotten conducted by Edcil which is a Government of India enterprise based in Noida, UP. For the purposes of getting the recruitment tests conducted for the posts of LDC at UGC, a contract was entered into between UGC and Edcil.
17. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that accused Rajeev Ranjan joined UGC as an LDC on 31.01.2014. After appointment of fresh lot of LDCs recruited through the aforestated selection process, it was observed by the UGC that performance of some of the LDCs was not upto the mark, therefore, UGC conducted an internal typing test in March 2014 to assess the basic skill of the appointees. As per the result of the internal typing test so conducted, accused Rajeev Ranjan was amongst the five candidates who failed the assessment test. Thereafter, UGC obtained specimen handwriting, LTIs and signatures of these five candidates including the present accused Rajeev Ranjan and got it compared with the signatures on the attendance sheets/OMRs which were obtained by Edcil during the entrance exams conducted in August 2013 and December 2013. CFSL, Shimla opined that the specimen signatures of Rajeev Ranjan did not match with the signatures appearing on the attendance sheets dt. 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013 against the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 33 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:22 +0530 name of Rajeev Ranjan. On the basis of this CFSL report, UGC was of the view that this was a case of impersonation wherein some person other than Rajeev Ranjan had appeared in his place in both the recruitment tests conducted by Edcil. In consequence thereof, UGC filed the present complaint against five persons including accused Rajeev Ranjan with the CBI with the intention to get the larger conspiracy and role of Edcil or other officials uncovered by way of a thorough investigation by CBI. UGC also terminated the services of all the five candidates including the present accused Rajeev Ranjan on 02.07.2015.
18. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that during the course of investigation, it was found that five LDCs who failed the test could not qualify the internal skill/typing test conducted by UGC as they could not reach the desired typing speed i.e. 30 words per minute (w.p.m.) Accused Rajeev Ranjan scored as low a score of 14 w.p.m. in the internal typing test conducted by UGC which is far below the prescribed minimum or the desired limit.
19. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that specimen signatures and specimen left thumb impressions of accused Rajeev Ranjan were obtained in the presence of independent witness and sent to CFSL 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 questioned LTI marked as 'QD-5' which is the LTI appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dt. 25.08.2013, 'QD-6' which is the LTI on attendance sheet dt. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 34 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:29 +0530 08.12.2013 and 'QD-32' which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013 is different from his specimen LTIs.
20. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that the document division of CFSL, New Delhi has vide his report bearing no. CFSL-2016/A-366 dated 15.11.2018 has opined that the signatures appearing against the name of accused Rajeev Ranjan appearing on Q9 (signatures on attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013), Q10 (signatures on attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013), Q32 (signatures on sheet of document verification dated 08.12.2013) and QD33 (signatures on report of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013) are different from specimen signatures of accused Rajeev Ranjan which were obtained during the course of investigation.
21. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that specimen RTI of accused Rajeev Ranjan obtained in the presence of independent witness were also sent to fingerprint division of CFSL, New Delhi for comparison with the questioned LTIs. Fingerprint examination report bearing no. CFSL-2016/A-366(R) dated 08.11.2016 established that QD6 i.e. LTI appearing on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and 'QD-32' which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013 are identical to each other but both were different from specimen RTIs of accused Rajeev Ranjan obtained during investigation. It also opined that QD-5 which is the LTI appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dt. 25.08.2013 is different not only from the specimen RTIs of __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 35 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:37 +0530 accused Rajeev Ranjan but also different from QD6 i.e. LTI appearing on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and 'QD-32' which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013.
22. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that the investigation did convincingly establish that it was in fact not Rajeev Ranjan who had appeared for the written examination conducted by Edcil on 25.08.2013 as well as skill/typing test conducted on 08.12.2013, however, the investigation could not establish the identity of the impersonator who had appeared on behalf of and in place of accused Rajeev Ranjan in the aforesaid examinations.
23. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that no evidence of involvement of any UGC or Edcil official or any other public servant could be found during the investigation. However, RDA for minor penalty against UGC officials including Anil Kumar, Asst. UGC was recommended for not discharging their duty well. The investigation culminated in filing of the present charge-sheet against present accused Rajeev Ranjan u/s 120B r/w 419 and substantive offence u/s 420 IPC for having committed the offence of conspiracy with unknown person with the purpose to cheat UGC by making somebody else to sit in his own place in the entrance examinations for getting himself selected to the post of LDC at UGC.
24. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that on the basis of the material filed by CBI, charges came to be framed __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 36 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:43 +0530 against the accused Rajeev Ranjan u/s 120B r/w sections 419, 420, and 471 IPC and substantive offence thereof, vide order dated 25.07.2023 of the trial court.
25. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has proceeded to examine as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the present accused person. Statement of the accused person was recorded u/s 313 CrPC on 01.08.2025. The defence chose to lead evidence and examined four DWs including the accused himself who was examined as DW1.
26. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for CBI that the prosecution has examined the complainant and other UGC/Edcil officials. The complainant examined as PW-1 in the present case has duly proved the authenticity of the complaint Ex. PW 1/A and verified its contents to be true. He has further deposed regarding the basis and the background which led to the filing of the complaint with CBI by UGC. When testimony of PW1/complainant is read together in juxtaposition with the testimony of other UGC officials who have been examined as PW-3 and PW-5, the inescapable conclusion that is reached is that accused Rajeev Ranjan failed the internal assessment typing test which was conducted on 18.03.2014 and, thereafter, UGC through Edcil got forensic comparison of specimen signatures of accused duly obtained by PW-5 (UGC section officer) with the questioned documents. The CFSL, Shimla report authored by PW-7 R.S. Rana which forms part of Ex. PW 7/A found that the signatures appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on the attendance sheets dt. 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013 were not __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 37 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:49 +0530 matching with the specimen signatures of the accused which were admittedly obtained by UGC on 26.05.2014.
27. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for CBI that the fact that oral complaints were being received regarding the poor performance of the newly recruited LDCs, that an internal skill/typing test was conducted by UGC on 19.03.2014 to assess the performance of those LDCs, that five LDCs including the present accused Rajeev Ranjan failed the said test and that the CFSL, Shimla report (forming part of Ex. PW 7/A) establishing that some person other than the accused Rajeev Ranjan had appeared in the examinations conducted by Edcil which eventually led the UGC to file an official complaint with CBI are facts duly established not only from the oral testimony of PW-1(complainant), PW-3 (UGC official), PW-4 (Edcil official), PW-5 (UGC official) and that of PW-8 (Edcil official) but also from the records available and duly proven in court through these witnesses. Pertinent herein is to mention the official file of UGC which is Ex. PW 5/B (D-14) which contains the notesheets in respect of the conduct of internal skill typing assessment test dealt by PW-5 in his official capacity. A bare perusal of this file throws clarity upon a number of issues raised by the ld. Defence counsel during the course of oral arguments. A glaring example of this would be the motive that is being attributed by the defence upon the UGC to file the present complaint. Going by their line of argument, it is contended on behalf of the accused 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 38 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:58:59 +0530 been made scapegoat. It is most humbly submitted that this defence being raised by the accused is not only illusory and far- fetched but is also belied by the fact that the balance payment of Rs. 1,39,48,942/- out of a 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 as is evidenced from the official notings present at page 17-18 of file Ex. PW 5/B (D-14). 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 on this aspect on the behalf of accused. In adjudicating upon this aspect, it is crucial that sight is not lost of the presumption of proper and regular performance which attaches with the official acts.
28. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for CBI that the fact that though it was proposed to hold an internal objective test also but that in fact only a skill typing test was conducted for the LDCs has been clarified by PW-1/complainant in his cross- examination and is also brought forth by the official notings in file Ex. PW 5/B.
29. It has been further argued by Ld. APP for CBI that the contention raised on behalf of accused that he had not failed the test but only performed poorly does not hold water in view of the official notings available on page no. 2 and 9 of Ex. PW 5/B duly proven by the concerned witness wherein it has been stated that __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 39 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:07 +0530 accused Rajeev Ranjan has failed the test conducted by UGC to assess their efficiency and has scored a speed of 14 wpm against the minimum prescribed of 30 wpm.
30. It has been further argued that the chain of custody of questioned documents is duly established as it trite law that in assessing the admissibility of forensic opinion, the protection of chain of custody of the documents examined by the expert has to be kept intact and protected. In the present case, not only during the course of investigation at each juncture where the questioned documents as well as specimens were either obtained or handed over has a proper memo been drawn but also the seizure/independent witnesses have duly identified their signatures appearing on such memos as well also have identified the documents which were the subject matter of such memos. PW3 Sher Singh Yadav has in his deposition duly and properly identified not only the production cum seizure memo Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/K but has also duly identified the documents which were handed over by him to the IO through these seizure memos. Likewise, other independent seizure witnesses PW4 and PW5 have cogently established the proper chain of custody of the documents so handed over. As the present case is largely premised upon the reports/opinions of the expert witnesses, a bare perusal of testimonies of PW7 (handwriting expert, CFSL Shimla), PW9 (fingerprint expression expert, CFSL New Delhi) and PW10 (handwriting expert, CFSL Delhi) would show that not only have they in their respective depositions duly identified the forwarding letters through which the questioned documents and specimens were received in their __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 40 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:14 +0530 laboratories/divisions but also identified and duly gotten exhibited the forwarding letters of their laboratories by way of which the CFSL reports authored by them were sent to Edcil or CBI. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that all the three aforementioned experts have duly identified their respective official stamps on the questioned documents as well as the specimen signatures/ thumb impressions which were received in their laboratories and divisions on which they have rendered their opinion. Most importantly, the chain of custody of the concerned documents remain unrebutted in the cross-examination. It is also significant to mention herein that transmission of the results of the CFSL reports as well as the original CFSL reports by Edcil to UGC which is contained in communications forming part of D-15 i.e. Ex.PW5/C(colly) have been duly proven by the office bearers of Edcil, namely PW4 G.D. Devnani as well as PW8 U.S. Gaekwad.
31. It has been further argued that the specimen signatures and thumb impressions duly obtained as per law and it is settled position of law that whenever specimen signatures/ thumb impressions are obtained during investigation, then voluntariness has to be established by the prosecution. The specimen signatures, LTIs and RTIs of accused Rajeev Ranjan were obtained by the IO voluntarily and without any sort of coercion has been cogently established not only through the testimony of independent witnesses PW2 and PW6 which remains unrebutted in their cross examination, which is contrary in the face of the false deposition given by DW-1/accused himself. Thus, during the course of his deposition, the accused Rajeev Ranjan admitted __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 41 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:21 +0530 that he was neither in police custody nor did he report about the pressure created on him for giving his specimens. This clearly shows that the accused made a false statement under oath to this effect just in order to save his skin by attempting to unscrupulously denting the prosecution case. More importantly, the testimony of independent witnesses PW-2 and PW-6 have withstood the test of cross-examination and significant weightage is to be attached to the testimony of independent witnesses. Accused Rajeev Ranjan has also identified his own signatures, LTIs and writings which are Ex.PW3/J as being the ones which he had given to UGC on 26.05.2024. In view of the aforestated evidence, there remains not an iota of doubt that all the specimens of accused Rajeev Ranjan were procured in strict compliance with law.
32. It has been further argued that there are cogent evidences in the form of two handwriting reports. The handwriting report authored by PW7 RS Rana which forms part of Ex.PW7/A as well as the handwriting report authored by two handwriting experts which forms part of Ex.PW10/A have individually established that the signatures appearing against the name of accused Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet on Q9 i.e. attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013 as well as on Q10 i.e. attendance sheet dated 08.12.2013 do not belong to him and are of some other person. To this extent, both these reports hailing from duly accredited national government laboratories have reached a common finding. In addition thereto, report/opinion forming part of Ex.PW10/A authored by PW10 and one Dr. Rita R Gupta, both senior scientific officers and government __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 42 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:28 +0530 document examiners, has also reached a conclusive finding that signatures appearing on Q32 i.e. signatures appearing on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) dt, 08.12.2013 and Q33 i.e. original report of typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 are not that of accused Rajeev Ranjan.
33. It has been further argued that there are cogent evidences in the form of two handwriting reports. The handwriting report a conviction can very well ensue solely on the basis of a handwriting report provided it is duly supported by robust reasons which remain unchallenged is the law which has been re- iterated in the most recent judgment delivered by a two-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Kamalakkannan v. State of T.N. (2025) 4 SCC 487. The relevant portions are re-produced as under:
13. The locus classicus on this issue is Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] , wherein this Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 707-709, 711-12, paras 4, 6 & 11) "4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 43 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:36 +0530 because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-
prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. ... ***
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person "specially skilled" "in questions as to identity of handwriting" is expressly made a relevant fact. ... So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard-and-fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. ***
11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. 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 an 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 44 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:43 +0530 with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted."
34. It has been further argued that in light of the aforestated settled position of law, it is of utmost importance to note that throughout the cross-examinations of PW-7 and PW-10, respectively, not even a single question or suggestion has been put to them pertaining to their reasons which are detailed in nature and duly form part of their opinions Ex. PW 7/A and Ex. PW 10/A. That is to state that despite a full-fledged cross- examination the reasons supporting the handwriting opinions remain unchallenged. Thus, present is a case which warrants a conviction solely on the basis of the handwriting reports duly based on detailed reasons which remain uncontroverted. This is being submitted without prejudice to the fact that other relevant and reliable evidence in the form of depositions of various UGC and Edcil officials, to wit, PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 is already available on record.
35. It has been further argued that the besides the aforestated two handwriting reports which by virtue of their own force conclusively establish the fact that it was not accused Rajeev Ranjan who had appeared in recruitment tests conducted on 25.08.2013 and 08.12.2013, there are two thumb impression reports duly exhibited by PW-9 (fingerprint examination expert, CFSL, New Delhi) and forming part of Ex. PW 9/C and Ex. PW 9/D. The thumb impression report Ex. PW 9/C conclusively establishes that questioned LTI marked as 'QD-5' which is the LTI appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 45 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:50 +0530 sheet dt. 25.08.2013, 'QD-6' which is the LTI on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and 'QD-32' which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013 are different from his specimen LTIs. The thumb impression report Ex. PW 9/D opines that QD6 i.e. LTI appearing on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and QD32 which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013 are identical to each other but both were different from specimen RTIs of accused Rajeev Ranjan obtained during investigation. It also opined that QD5 which is the LTI appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dt. 25.08.2013 is different not only from the specimen RTIs of accused Rajeev Ranjan but also different from QD6 i.e. LTI appearing on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and QD32 which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013. As to what was the need to get LTIs compared with the specimen RTIs of accused has been reasonably explained by the IO/PW-11 in his testimony. He deposed that the same was done to rule out the possibility of the accused having put his RTIs mistakenly on the questioned documents instead of LTIs. This was rather done to comprehensively investigate the matter and this instils the confidence in the investigation which was fair to the accused.
36. It has been further argued that the evidentiary value attached with the thumb/fingerprint impressions which the Hon'ble apex court has itself stated in the judgment of Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 1 SCC 487 . The relevant extract is reproduced herein below for the reference of this hon'ble __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 46 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 14:59:58 +0530 court:
"8. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the evidence of Dr Mohinder Partap PW 1, who has stated that the deceased had reached the hospital on August 4, 1971 at 2 a.m. Although the injured was speaking something his statement could not be recorded. On the other hand, the witness recorded the statement of the mother Tej Kaur who seems to have given a different version and suggested that her son Bhupinder Singh deceased had an injury on his abdomen which was caused by the falling of a bag containing wheat on his stomach. The thumb impression of Tej Kaur on the alleged statement was sent to the expert who was of the opinion that this could not be the thumb impression of Tej Kaur. The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. The report of Dr K.S. Puri clearly demonstrates that the thumb impression on the statement Ex. PB. was not that of Tej Kaur but was of some other woman who appears to have falsely represented to the doctor that she was the mother of the deceased. This is supported not only by the fact that the thumb impression of Tej Kaur on the statement Ex. PB. was forged but also by the categorical statement of PW 6 wherein she denied having made any such statement before the doctor. The doctor although examined as a witness in court was never made to identify Tej Kaur who was also one of the witnesses, nor was any application given by the accused that the doctor should be called upon to identify Tej Kaur PW 6 in order to test the validity of the statement that it was really Tej Kaur who made the statement Ex. PB. before the doctor. In these circumstances, therefore, the evidence of the doctor does not appear to be of any assistance to the defence."
The aforestated proposition of law has been re-iterated by the hon'ble SC in as recent a judgment as that of C. Kamalakkannan v. State of T.N. (2025) 4 SCC 487, the relevant portion of which is re-produced as under:
13. The locus classicus on this issue is Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] , wherein this Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 707-709, 711-12, paras 4, 6 & 11) "4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 47 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:00:05 +0530 no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses -- the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses -- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-
prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides......
37. It has been further argued that in view of the aforestated settled law, the thumb impression reports forming part of Ex. PW 9/C and Ex. PW 9/D have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that accused Rajeev Ranjan was not the person who had appeared in the skill typing test conducted on 08.12.2013. Moreover, the fact that the report forming part of Ex. PW 9/C of fingerprint expert PW-9 has established that none of the three LTIs on questioned documents (QD-5, QD-6 and QD-32) match with the specimen LTIs of the accused Rajeev Ranjan. In light of the perfect nature of science of identification of thump impression which has also achieved judicial sanction in the form of precedents cited above, there cannot be a second deduction apart from the fact that __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 48 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:00:12 +0530 accused himself neither appeared for the written examination conducted on 25.08.2013 nor for the skill/typing test conducted on 08.12.2013.
38. It has been further argued that the all the positive opinions adverse to the accused person are purely based on the originals and not mere reproduction copies. In view of the totally false explanation rendered by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC to the effect that the fingerprint as well as the handwriting reports being relied upon by the prosecution are based on examination of photocopied documents, it has become essential herein to mention that Q-9, Q-10, Q-32 & Q-33 on which an opinion adverse to the accused has been rendered are all original documents. The concerned expert witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-10 were also shown these original questioned documents (forming part of Ex. PW 3/C, Ex. PW 3/D and Ex. PW 3/F) in court during their deposition which they duly identified as the ones which they had received for comparison and on which they have given their respective reasoned opinions. On the questioned documents which were mere photocopies, no opinion has been given and this fact also duly finds mention in their respective reports. Similar is the case with the LTI bearing 'QD-5' which is the LTI appearing against the name of Rajeev Ranjan on attendance sheet dt. 25.08.2013, 'QD-6' which is the LTI on attendance sheet dt. 08.12.2013 and 'QD-32' which is the LTI on the attendance sheet (Document Verification) of skill test dated 08.12.2013. Thus, the fulcrum on which the accused has made a frail attempt to build his false defence is belied by the record of the case itself.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 49 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:00:18 +0530
39. It has been further argued that there are contradictions and admissions in the testimonies of defence witnesses itself. This is a classic case wherein defence evidence has done more harm to the case of the accused than any good. The accused chose to examine himself as DW-1 in the present case. A lot of glaring contradictions have thereby appeared not only amongst the testimonies of various defence witnesses but also in the statement of accused Rajeev Ranjan recorded u/s 313 CrPC on one hand and his deposition on the other. One instance where the weak defence being put forth on behalf of accused falls apart is when the conducting prosecutor had put a specific question to the accused in his cross-examination that how did his speed drastically decreased from 39.56 wpm (as allegedly scored by him in his recruitment skill/typing test conducted on 08.12.2013) to 14 wpm in the internal typing test conducted by UGC on 18.03.2013 i.e. merely within a span of 3-4 months. To this question, DW-1/accused has specifically stated in his answer that he was not assigned any typing work at UGC. Now this is diametrically opposite and contradictory to what has been deposed by DW-4, the Section officer of UGC under who accused Rajeev Ranjan was admittedly posted. He has expressly stated in his testimony that accused Rajeev Ranjan was assigned typing work and was doing the same since the day he had been working under DW-4. Thus, this is a case where even the statements given under oath by the defence witnesses themselves cannot stand together, and thereby, totally belie the defence of the accused. Another witness gotten examined in defence was DW-2 Anil Kumar who was a UGC official posted at the centre __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 50 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:00:24 +0530 where skill/typing test was conducted on 08.12.2013. A bare glance at his testimony puts him as well as the defence of the accused in a precarious position. It is evidently clear from his deposition that DW-2 was not even aware of the purpose of his being deputed at the centre on 08.12.2013. His evidence is full of inherent contradictions as he could not even depose as to who had filled columns under Part B of D-9 (Ex. PW 3/E). Being the UGC official, he could not even tell the court as to who had affixed the UGC stamp at point marked 'D' on the only document which he was required to fill up. He was not even aware of the nature of the duties and the mode and method to be adopted to carry out those duties for which he was deputed at the centre on 08.12.2013. In the course of cross-examination, the credibility of DW-2 is totally shaken and that he had not performed his duties diligently on 08.12.2013 is evident from the fact that CBI in its chargesheet Ex. PW 11/B had recommended departmental action against him for not performing his duties well on that particular day.
40. It has been further argued that the all the expert opinions be it in the form of both the handwriting reports or the reports from fingerprint division are from certified government experts and from duly accredited NABL national government laboratories. This fact makes these reports even more credible and judicially reliable. All the expert opinions/reports corroborate and support each other's findings which are to the definite effect that accused Rajeev Ranjan was not the person who had appeared in the written test conducted on 25.08.2013 and skill typing test conducted on 08.12.2013. All the expert __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 51 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:00:31 +0530 opinions have been rendered on the original documents which have also been duly identified and exhibited by the respective experts in court during their deposition. No opinion has been given on documents which were mere reproduction copies and this has been expressly mentioned in their respective reports. A total of four government experts, three from document division and one from fingerprint division have properly examined the questioned documents and authored the reports and their expertise remain unchallenged and beyond any shadow of doubt.
The proper chain of custody of questioned as well as specimen documents and the original CFSL reports has been duly maintained during the course of investigation and has also been duly proven in court through the testimonies of the relevant prosecution witnesses. No cross-examination at all has been conducted either on the aspect of challenging the expertise of government experts or the methodology adopted by them in reaching their conclusions. More importantly, not even a single question or a suggestion has been put to the handwriting experts on the merits of their reports or the detailed reasons which form part of their opinion. Therefore, the reasons underlying their respective opinion remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. When the reasons of the opinion are robust and strong enough and they remain unchallenged in the cross-examination, the opinion by itself is enough to hand down a conviction. Though in the present case, surely enough there are other reliable evidences pointing towards the inescapable conclusion of the guilt of the accused Rajeev Ranjan. Other relevant and reliable evidences in the form of testimony of UGC and Edcil officials, namely, __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 52 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:00:38 +0530 PW-1/complainant Sh. Ajay Khanduri, PW-3 Sh. Sher Singh Yadav (Section Officer, UGC), PW-4 Sh. G.D. Devnani (Manager, Recruitment services, Edcil), PW-5 Sh. RIS Bharadwaj (Section officer, UGC) and PW-8 U.S. Gaikwad (Edcil official) along with the documentary evidence duly proven by them in the course of their depositions is available in the present case which makes the prosecution even more invigorating and beyond reasonable doubt.
41. It has been further argued that the official acts carry with them a presumption of being performed regularly and properly which has remained unrebutted throughout the trial in the present matter. Admissions and contradictions brought out as afore- discussed in the defence evidence led takes the prosecution case on an even stronger footing thereby belying the frail and weak defence attempted to be raised on behalf of the accused Rajeev Ranjan.
42. 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.
43. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in the present case, the allegations 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 53 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:00:45 +0530 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.
44. 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 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 vide statement dated 11.08.2025. This certificate fully support the stand of the accused that there is no case of impersonation or cheating at any stage as alleged or otherwise.
45. 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 check the identity of the candidate with Photo __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 54 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:00:53 +0530 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 match with the application and attendance sheet. Signature and left thumb impression were taken on the attendance sheet. Proof of date of birth from the original certificate of High School/ Secondary Examination. 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 21 Page no.6- 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 impersonation or cheating is impossible.
46. 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 55 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:01 +0530 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 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.
47. 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.
48. 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 doubled checked and the UGC officials were satisfied regarding their identity.
49. 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 is deputed in each section and the signature of that communication is on page 4 dated 06.01.2014. So, it is clear that __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 56 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:07 +0530 before the new LDCs were appointed such action was planned by UGC in advance. It is further proved that to clear pending work, the file arranging work was given to accused person. That in document no. D17 page 8, names of UGC officials (serial no.8 Anil Kumar) who did the documents verification is given. That the said Anil Kumar 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.
50. 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.
51. 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/50/2019 Page No. 57 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:14 +0530
52. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no any 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., 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.
53. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the Attendance Sheet, 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.
54. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it is falsely stated that there were oral complaints against these 5 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 58 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:21 +0530 the aforesaid reasons and also because they are from very poor family background. That these allegations are totally in contradiction with ACR/ Performance Appraisal Performa placed on record.
55. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in order to throw out the above 5 persons from the service, 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.
56. 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.
57. 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 were __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 59 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:01:28 +0530 photocopies and the CFSL Shimla gave a report dated 02.07.2014 stating that it has not been possible to express any opinion on the disputed writing and signatures and the disputed items are reproduction copies and it is not possible to scientifically study the most of the writing characteristics occurring in them that are considered essential and absolute in the matter of examination. It is further requested in the said report that for giving an opinion on the aforesaid disputed items, to supply the original documents and a few more specimen writings and signatures of the persons concerned are required for the same. But no separate letter demanding original documents was sent by CFSL Shimla. The specimen signature/handwriting provided by Edcil was admittedly insufficient, still it gave report.
That the same was admitted by witness R.S. Rana 26.11.2024. It is nowhere else stated in the said report dated 02.07.2014 that the study/examination was conducted on the original documents. That the forwarding CFSL, Shimla letter dated 25.07.2014 does not authorize Mr. R.S. Rana to release the report or to depose in the court. That the same was admitted by witness R.S. Rana 26.11.2024. That the said CFSL, Shimla report was concerning only of signatures and not thumb impressions and no opinion was given in the said report regarding accused Anand Kumar Maurya and Rishinath Prasad. This report is mischievously interpreted by Edcil Officials, UGC Officials and the IO from the initial Complaint, FIR, Charge sheet of IO, Statement U/s. 161 and 164 Cr.PC before this Hon'ble Court, that the said report is regarding thumb impression and signatures of all the aforesaid accused and came to a conclusion that impersonation was allegedly done by __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 60 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:35 +0530 all 5 accused persons in conspiracy with each other and committed fraud.
58. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel 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.
59. 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 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 61 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:06 +0530 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 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 62 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:02:13 +0530 court, nor any involvement or any impersonator was doubted therefore none of these UGC officials were made as witnesses.
60. 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 breath.
61. 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 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.
62. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 63 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:20 +0530
63. 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.
64. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that D10 is the document that is typing test sheet dated 07.12.2013. 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 as he has not passed the __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 64 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:02:28 +0530 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no disclosure statement of any accused placed on record.
68. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that when the UGC officials who stated in their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C., 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 65 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:35 +0530 03.09.2025 and their statements dated 03.09.2025 are not dented in cross examination by prosecution.
69. 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 satisfactory answer so far by anyone i.e. Edcil and UGC or prosecution regarding the alleged impersonation.
70. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that document verification check list having photographs, checked and signed by UGC officials and has again signed with seal "original documents verified, allowed for appearing in skill test"
(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.
71. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that investigation throughout is inconsistent, shoddy and defective.
72. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in internal typing test result conducted by UGC result clearly written that accused persons have 'Passed' the exam (D13), where the accused have got 14 words per minute with 89 percent accuracy. Rabi Inder Singh Bhardwaj didn't possess the required __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 66 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:42 +0530 training nor had any such certificate of qualification regarding typing lower or Higher of exam passed was provided nor was he examined as a witness to those typing results to prove his qualification for this purpose.
73. 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 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.
74. 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 that accused persons in conspiracy with each other and with some unknown persons committed fraud on UGC. There are serious investigation lapses that rendered the prosecution evidence not __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 67 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:49 +0530 trustworthy.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in D7 i.e. attendance sheet of writing test of Rajeev Ranjan, there are many thumb impression in 1 page just above and below of Rajeev Ranjan so the chances of interpolation is not ruled out by examining the thumb impression of other adjacent candidates. At D8, attendance sheet of typing test dated 08.12.2013, chance of interpolation between thumb impressions of candidates above and below is not ruled out by examining the thumb impression of other adjacent candidates. That merging of a portion of signature with thumb impressions of accused Rajeev Ranjan makes both signatures as well as thumb impression incapable of proper scientific examination, this fact is not reflected in both the reports of signatures and 2 reports of thumb impressions. At D8 page no.2 chances of interpolation between thumb impressions of candidates above and below is not ruled out by examining the thumb impression of other adjacent candidates.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 68 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:02:56 +0530
78. 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.
79. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Shimla report is based on examination of the photocopies as it is not specifically stated anywhere in the report that the examination is conducted on original documents. That, therefore, it is unprofessional practice to examine photocopies of documents and give report, therefore, the report is completely unreliable. That R.S. Rana who prepared the CFSL Shimla report knew that his examination is conducted on photocopies and not on original documents, despite that he did not demand the original documents by a separate letter before conducting such examination. He casually admitted in the last paragraph of the report that it is not possible to scientifically study the writing characteristics of the photocopies and simply mentioned to supply the original documents as well as few more specimen signatures of the concerned. Meaning thereby that the available specimen signatures are not sufficient to give an opinion still he went ahead with the examination on photocopies and gave a report.
80. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the examination 'notes' conducted at the time of examination of documents are not filed to substantiate the opinion arrived. Therefore, the CFSL reports were prepared without actually __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 69 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:03 +0530 conducting the examination. That the time taken to prepare the CFSL Shimla report is 4 days i.e. from 01.07.2014 to 04.07.2014, whereas in deposition he falsely stated that it took about a month for examination of documents. That during the same period i.e. from 27.06.2014 to 02.07.2014 he has also allegedly conducted the examination of documents of Pawan Kumar, the Co- Accused and whereas during the same period i.e. 24.06.2014 to 03.07.2014 (9 days), he also conducted examining the documents of Pappu Kumar, therefore this CFSL Shimla Report dated 04.07.2014 is totally unbelievable and therefore cannot be relied upon. All these alleged examinations are simultaneously conducted, making it highly improbable and impossible. That this fact is not reflected in the report also. That R.S. Rana dated 26.11.2024 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that he has conducted examination on photocopies of the documents. That R.S. Rana who has signed the CFSL Shimla report dated 04.07.2014 is not authorized to release the report and thereby not competent to depose before the court as admitted by him in his cross-examination dated 26.11.2024, nor any such authorization letter is placed on record. That a portion of signature on Attendance (typing Sheet) (D8) is merged with the thumb impression, this fact is not reflected in both reports nor in the Thumb Impression Reports nor in signatures. That R.S. Rana has stated that he needed more specimen signatures for conducting examination meaning thereby the specimen signatures already available are insufficient to form an opinion, he still gave the report. That the fact that a portion of signature on attendance sheet (typing test) dated 08.12.2013 on document __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 70 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:10 +0530 verification is merged with thumb impression making it difficult to give a clear opinions. This fact is not reflected in this CFSL report or the concerned Report on Thumb impression. That notes prepared during the examination of documents were not filed. Prima facie it appears that just a report is given without undertaking any actual examination of documents. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that forwarding letter of Edcil deliberately not filed.
81. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the 70 signatures approximately of IO Kuldeep Singh in chargesheet, Specimen signature sheets, thumb impression sheets are totally different form his 12 signatures on his deposition dated 02.04.2025, so it is possible that a person may sign differently on the same day. This aspect is totally ignored by the CFSL report and it is unsafe to place reliance upon report on signatures as none believes that IO has impersonated.
82. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that all the reports of CFSL Delhi by AD Shah is inconsistent 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 QD5 is different from QD6 and whether QD6 is different from QD 32 and on what basis he comes onto that conclusion. That the complete details of all the five accused persons is reproduced in cut and paste in the next report dated 08.11.2016 from the previous report dated 27.04.2016 and prepared by Stenographer __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 71 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:17 +0530 which is clear from his 3 reports. Therefore, all the 3 reports are not reliable. 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.
83. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the report of CFSL, Delhi dated 08.11.2016 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.
84. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 72 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:24 +0530 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 some of the thumb impressions is so dim (D7) and not legible for the examination, this fact is not reflected in the report. 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 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.
85. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in the CFSL Delhi Report dated 15.11.2018, the forwarding letter dated 26.11.2018 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 73 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:31 +0530 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 there is no comparison between Q9, Q10, Q32 and Q33, whether these signatures are of same persons or different persons. 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 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 74 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:03:38 +0530
86. 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.
87. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the written submissions and judgments filed on record by the Ld. counsels for the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
88. 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 appear 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 75 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:03:45 +0530
89. 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 is 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 specimen signatures were sent to Edcil for comparison and reports of CFSL regarding mismatch of signatures.
90. 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 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 76 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed by MAYANK CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:03:52 +0530 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.
91. 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.
92. The present case is mainly based upon the reports of the expert witnesses. The handwriting report by PW7 R.S. Rana is Ex.PW7/A. The handwriting report authored by two handwriting expert Ex.PW10/A have duly established that the signatures appearing against the name of accused on attendance sheet Q9 and Q10 do not belong to accused rather of some unknown person and also established that signatures appearing on Q32 and Q33 are not of accused.
93. 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. PW7, PW9 and PW10 have duly identified the forwarding letters __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 77 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:03:58 +0530 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.
94. 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 PW7 and PW10 pertaining to their reasons which are detailed in nature and duly formed the part of their opinions Ex.PW7/A and Ex. PW10/A and pertaining to the methodology adopted by 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.
95. 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 78 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:04:06 +0530
96. 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.PW9/C and Ex. PW9/D duly established that LTIs QD5, QD6 and QD32 of accused on attendance sheet dated 25.08.2013 and attendance sheet/ document verification dated 08.12.2013 are different from the specimen LTIs of accused and specimen RTIs of the accused. It is also admitted fact that the LTI and RTI of the one person never matches but the IO had got the LTIs 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.
97. 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, Q32 and Q33 has been rendered on original documents. PW7 and PW10 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.
98. 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 from 39.56 wpm(words per __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 79 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:04:12 +0530 minute) as allegedly scored by him in typing test conducted on 08.12.2013 to 14 wpm in the internal typing test conducted by UGC on 18.03.2014, as he was not assigned any typing work at UGC. However, DW4 under whom accused was admittedly posted categorically deposed that accused was assigned typing work and was filling up forms in the computer system. Moreover, 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.
99. 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 document D-13 is the internal typing test result sheet dated 18.03.2014 which shows that he had passed the exam with 89% 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.
100. 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 80 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:04:19 +0530
101. 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 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.
102. 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.
103. It has been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh. G.D. Bisht and Sh. R.I.S. Bhardwaj didn't possess the required __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CC No. CBI/50/2019 Page No. 81 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 Digitally signed CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:04:26 +0530 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.
104. 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.
105. 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 08.12.2013. 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/50/2019 Page No. 82 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2025.12.11 15:04:33 +0530 CONCLUSION
106. 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 Rajeev Ranjan 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.
107. Let copy of judgment be given to the convict free of costs.
108. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
Digitally signed by MAYANKMAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2025.12.11 15:04:42 +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/50/2019 Page No. 83 of 83 RC-DAI-2015-A0027 CBI vs. RAJEEV RANJAN