Back
Acquits Deepak Mandal Citing Contradictions, Lapses in Fake Currency Case
A has acquitted Deepak Mandal in a 2018 fake currency case, pointing to a host of procedural lapses and contradictions that undermined the prosecution’s case.
Judge Amit Bansal of the found that the investigation suffered from “ in the testimony of ” and a “failure to explain why crucial evidence was not seized.” The court also flagged the troubling presence of the FIR number on documents prepared before the FIR was registered, which cast “a of the prosecution version.”
The Fabricated Trap
According to the prosecution, a team from the of the received information that Mandal, a resident of Malda, West Bengal, was involved in circulating fake currency notes in Delhi. A was planned on at the DTC Bus Depot in Khanpur. HC Manoj, acting as a decoy customer, handed over a containing two genuine ₹2,000 notes and 98 paper cuttings to Mandal. In return, the prosecution alleged, Mandal handed over a black polythene containing two wads of 200 counterfeit ₹2,000 notes (worth ₹4 lakh) and another polythene with 175 counterfeit notes (worth ₹3.50 lakh) from his shoulder bag. The notes were later confirmed to be counterfeits by the in Nasik.
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of HC Manoj (PW1), HC Mohit (PW3), and the first investigating officer, SI Nirbhay Rana (PW7). The second IO, SI Rakesh Ahluwalia (PW8), also supported the case.
Contradictions That Unravelled the Case
The court, however, noted several fatal discrepancies. A key flaw was the failure to seize the black bag and black polythenes that allegedly contained the counterfeit notes. Both PW1 and PW7 admitted that the bag and polythenes were not taken into possession. The court observed that these were “material pieces of evidence” and the prosecution offered no explanation for their absence, raising “a … of the case.”
Another major contradiction concerned the preparation of the . PW1 stated that PW7 “prepared the by cutting white paper with scissors in the office.” But in cross-examination, PW7 deposed that he had the prepared “2-3 days before the date of incident from a private book binder in the market.” The court noted that the 98 paper cuttings were cut “to the precision with the size of ₹2,000 currency note” and had no identification mark, making the contradiction fatal.
The court also found a “very material contradiction” regarding the constitution of the raiding team. PW1 testified that the secret informer arrived at his office at 7:30 PM on 9 August, after which the team was formed. But PW3 stated that PW7 briefed the team members at 7:00 PM, i.e., before the informer’s arrival. This discrepancy, the court said, “raises a very strong doubt upon the veracity” of the prosecution witnesses.
The Pre-FIR Number Puzzle
Perhaps the most telling point was that several and the , all dated 9 August and 10 August before the FIR was registered at 7:00 AM on 10 August, already bore the FIR number (93/2018). The court observed that this indicated either that the FIR was recorded before the alleged recovery, or that the number was inserted later. “In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a great deal of doubt about the recovery,” the court ruled, citing a precedent in .
Missing Witness, Failed Identification
The court further noted that Inspector Ishwar Singh, a senior officer who played a key role in assisting the raiding team and who was mentioned in the remand application, was never cited or examined as a prosecution witness. The court described this as a “” that weakened the prosecution’s case.
During the trial, PW7 initially failed to identify Mandal when he was produced via video conferencing. Although the identification was later corrected in court, the earlier mistake added to the chain of doubts.
Citing the cumulative effect of these lapses, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case . It held that the must go to Mandal and acquitted him of all charges under .
The court also noted that the absence of at the busy spot further eroded the credibility of the recovery. It relied on the ’s judgment in , which holds that the failure to join independent witnesses when available “raises a strong doubt on the prosecution version.”
Key Observations
“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.”
“It is a very material contradiction … which raises a very of the material prosecution witnesses and the entire case of the prosecution.”
“The said black colour bag stated to contain abovesaid two black coloured polythenes stated to contain FICNs are material pieces of evidence … the prosecution has failed to explain or show any reason whatsoever as to why the said black coloured bag and two black coloured polythenes were neither seized nor proved.”
The acquittal underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the need for thorough, transparent investigations, especially when the liberty of an accused person is at stake.
