Delhi Court Acquits Man in Fake Currency Case After Seizure Documents Show FIR Number Before Registration
A Delhi court has acquitted a man accused of possessing and attempting to circulate counterfeit Indian currency worth approximately ₹7.5 lakh after finding several serious gaps in the prosecution case and investigation.
One of the significant circumstances noticed by the Court was that seizure documents allegedly prepared before registration of the FIR already contained the FIR number.
Accused Was Arrested in August 2018
The case, titled State v. Deepak Mandal, concerned allegations against Deepak Mandal, who was arrested on August 10, 2018.
According to the prosecution, Mandal was caught by a Special Cell team near the DTC Bus Depot at Khanpur, Delhi during the night of August 9, 2018.
He was prosecuted for offences relating to forged or counterfeit currency under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution Alleged Deal Involving Fake ₹2,000 Notes
The prosecution alleged that Mandal had brought counterfeit ₹2,000 notes worth ₹4 lakh and intended to exchange them for ₹2 lakh in genuine currency.
HC Manoj, an officer from the Special Cell, allegedly acted as a decoy customer seeking to purchase counterfeit currency.
For the trap, police allegedly prepared a dummy wad containing paper cuttings resembling ₹2,000 notes, with one genuine ₹2,000 note placed at the top and another at the bottom.
According to the prosecution, Mandal handed over two wads containing a total of 200 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes worth ₹4 lakh to the decoy.
Police further alleged that another 175 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes, amounting to ₹3.5 lakh, were recovered from a bag in Mandal's possession.
Currency Note Press Confirmed Notes Were Forged
The seized currency notes were sent for examination to the Currency Note Press at Nashik.
According to the prosecution evidence, the examination confirmed that the notes were counterfeit.
Despite this forensic finding, the Court concluded that serious doubts remained over the manner in which the alleged recovery and investigation were carried out.
FIR Number Appeared on Documents Prepared Before FIR Registration
The Court closely examined the timing of the alleged recovery and the registration of the FIR.
It noted that the alleged recovery took place at around 9:50 PM on August 9, 2018. Police personnel allegedly remained at the spot until around 4 AM, when the rukka was taken to the police station.
The duty officer reportedly received the rukka at around 4:40 AM, following which the FIR registration process continued.
The site plan and seizure documents relating to the alleged recovery of counterfeit notes, the dummy wad and genuine currency were stated to have been prepared before registration of the FIR.
Yet, the FIR number appeared on these documents. Mandal's signature was also found at the bottom of the documents.
Court Says Prosecution Failed to Explain FIR Number
The Court observed that the prosecution did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the FIR number could appear on documents prepared before the FIR itself had been registered.
Court's Concern
The Court observed that either the FIR had actually been recorded before the alleged recovery, or the FIR number had subsequently been inserted into documents prepared earlier.
According to the Court, either possibility created serious doubt regarding the prosecution version of the recovery.
Bags Allegedly Containing Fake Notes Were Not Seized
The Court also found that the bags from which the counterfeit currency was allegedly recovered were not seized by the investigating agency.
These included a black shoulder bag and two black polythene bags.
Since the bags formed an important part of the prosecution's recovery story, their non-seizure raised further questions regarding the authenticity of the alleged recovery.
No Independent Public Witness Joined the Raid
Another issue identified by the Court was the absence of independent witnesses.
The alleged recovery took place at a busy public location, but police did not join any independent person in the raid.
The Court further noted that the investigating officers did not record the particulars of individuals who allegedly refused to participate as witnesses and did not issue notices to such persons.
Key Investigation Gaps Noted by the Court
- FIR number appeared on seizure documents allegedly prepared before FIR registration.
- No satisfactory explanation was offered for the FIR number appearing on those documents.
- The bags allegedly containing counterfeit notes were not seized.
- No independent witness was joined despite the alleged recovery occurring at a public place.
- Details of persons who allegedly refused to join the raid were not recorded.
- Inspector Ishwar Singh, who allegedly supervised the raid, was not examined as a prosecution witness.
Officer Who Allegedly Supervised Raid Was Not Examined
The Court also noted that Inspector Ishwar Singh, who was said to have supervised the entire operation and received the secret information, was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness.
His absence from the prosecution evidence became another circumstance considered by the Court while evaluating whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused Given Benefit of Doubt
After considering the inconsistencies and gaps in the investigation, the Court held that the prosecution version could not be accepted without reasonable doubt.
Deepak Mandal was therefore given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges brought against him.
Lawyers Appearing in the Case
For the accused: Amicus Curiae RHA Sikander.
For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Gyan Prakash Ray.
