FIR number on documents which were prepared before lodging FIR: Delhi court acquits man in fake currency case

A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted a man accused of possessing and circulating fake Indian currency notes after finding several lapses in the police investigation, including the appearance of the FIR number on seizure documents prepared before the FIR was registered [State v. Deepak Mandal].

Judge Amit Bansal of Rouse Avenue Courts also found that the police had failed to seize the bags in which the alleged fake currency was recovered, despite the prosecution relying on them as the source of the recovery.

The Court said the presence of the FIR number on documents prepared before registration of the FIR raised serious doubts about the prosecution's version of the recovery.

“The number of FIR given on the top of the aforesaid documents clearly indicate that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration and in both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a great deal of doubt about the recovery of FICNs in the manner as alleged by the prosecution,” the Court noted.

It was hearing the case of one Deepak Mandal, who was arrested on August 10, 2018 after a special cell team allegedly caught him near the DTC Bus Depot at Khanpur in Delhi on the night of August 9, 2018.

Mandal was charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly possessing and attempting to circulate fake Indian currency notes. The prosecution claimed that he had brought ₹4 lakh worth of fake ₹2,000 notes to sell in exchange for ₹2 lakh in genuine currency.

According to the prosecution, a police officer, HC Manoj, acted as a decoy customer. The police prepared a dummy wad containing 98 paper cuttings of the size of ₹2,000 notes, placing one genuine ₹2,000 note at the top and another at the bottom. The wad was handed over to Manoj, who was to give it to Mandal during the deal.

The prosecution alleged that Mandal handed over two wads containing 200 fake ₹2,000 notes, worth ₹4 lakh, to the decoy customer. A further 175 fake ₹2,000 notes, worth ₹3.5 lakh, were allegedly recovered from a bag carried by Mandal.

The notes were subsequently sent to the Currency Note Press at Nashik which reported that they were counterfeit.

However, the Court found multiple discrepancies in the prosecution case and held that Mandal was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Court noted that the alleged recovery took place at about 9:50 pm on August 9, 2018. The police remained at the spot until around 4 am on August 10, when the rukka was taken to the police station for registration of the FIR.

The duty officer received the rukka at 4:40 am and the FIR was registered thereafter, with the endorsement showing the process continuing until 7 am.

The Court found that the site plan and several seizure documents - including those concerning the 175 fake notes, the ₹4 lakh worth of fake notes handed over by Mandal, the dummy wad and the two genuine notes - had been prepared before the FIR was registered.

Yet, all these documents carried the FIR number.

The Court found that the prosecution had offered no explanation for how the FIR number came to be mentioned on documents prepared before the FIR was registered.

It said this left two possibilities: either the FIR had actually been recorded before the alleged recovery or the FIR number was inserted into the documents after the FIR was registered.

In either situation, the circumstance seriously undermined the prosecution’s version and created “a great deal of doubt” about the alleged recovery, the judge held.

He also noted that the black shoulder bag and two black polythene bags allegedly containing the fake notes were never seized. It held that these were “material pieces of evidence” and their non-seizure raised a strong doubt about the authenticity of the alleged recovery.

The Court further found that police had failed to join independent witnesses despite the alleged recovery taking place at a busy public location. No particulars of the persons who allegedly refused to join the raid were recorded and no notices were served on them.

The Court also found it significant that Inspector Ishwar Singh, who allegedly supervised the raid and with whom the secret information was shared, was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness.

Therefore, the Court held that the police had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Mandal of all offences.

Mandal was represented by Amicus Curiae RHA Sikander.

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Gyan Prakash Ray.

[Read Order]