Seizure Documents Mentioned FIR Number Before Case Was Even Registered: Delhi Court Acquits Woman in Fake Currency Case
A Delhi court has acquitted Nazma in a fake Indian currency note case after finding serious contradictions and unexplained irregularities in the prosecution’s evidence. The court particularly took note of the fact that the seizure documents mentioned the FIR number even though, according to the prosecution itself, those documents had been prepared before the FIR was registered.
The judgment was delivered on July 18, 2025, by Additional Sessions Judge Abhishek Goyal of the Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Nazma was facing prosecution under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 254/2011 of Police Station Kotwali.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on November 20, 2011, at Chandni Chowk. A shopkeeper allegedly produced Nazma before police officials and handed over a ₹1,000 note, claiming that she had attempted to use it while purchasing clothes. Police subsequently claimed that three more ₹1,000 notes were recovered from her purse.
The prosecution alleged that the notes appeared counterfeit because their paper was rough, their colour was slightly pale and the security thread did not display the expected colour-changing feature. The notes were seized and subsequently sent for examination.
However, the court found that the prosecution evidence contained significant inconsistencies regarding the alleged recovery and the preparation of documents at the spot.
One of the most important issues concerned the seizure memos. The prosecution witnesses stated that the currency notes and other articles had been seized before the rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR. Therefore, at that stage, the investigating officer could not ordinarily have known the FIR number.
Yet the FIR particulars appeared on the seizure documents. More significantly, the court noted that the FIR number appeared in the same pen, colour and running handwriting as the rest of the documents. The prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation as to how the FIR number came to be recorded on documents that were allegedly prepared before registration of the case.
The court treated this discrepancy as more than a minor procedural irregularity. It held that the unexplained appearance of the FIR number created a serious doubt about the prosecution version and the genuineness of the documents relied upon to establish the alleged recovery.
The court referred to the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, where a similar issue had been considered. The underlying principle is that when a recovery memo is prepared before registration of an FIR, the FIR number should ordinarily not appear on that document because the investigating officer would not yet know the number.
The problem was compounded by other contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The trial court noted discrepancies concerning who witnessed the alleged recovery, the proceedings involving Nazma’s purse and the preparation and signing of the seizure documents. The court also observed that the complainant’s signature was absent from the seizure memo relating to the three allegedly recovered currency notes.
Another significant weakness concerned the alleged recovery from Nazma’s purse. Although one police witness stated that the purse had been checked and three counterfeit notes were recovered from it, another material witness did not corroborate the same version. The court also noted that the purse itself had neither been seized through a proper memo nor produced as evidence.
The court consequently found multiple contradictions, omissions and lacunae going to the root of the prosecution case. These shortcomings became particularly important because the criminal standard of proof requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court reiterated the settled principle that an accused is presumed innocent unless guilt is established by legally admissible evidence. Where the evidence permits two possible views, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily prevail.
Applying that principle, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 489B and 489C IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Nazma was therefore acquitted.
The ruling is significant because it demonstrates how apparently technical discrepancies in investigation documents can become crucial when they raise questions about the chronology and authenticity of the prosecution case. The issue was not simply that an FIR number appeared on a document; it was that the prosecution itself claimed the document existed before the FIR was registered and could not explain the presence of that number.
The judgment also illustrates the importance of maintaining a clear chronological record during criminal investigation. If a seizure is allegedly made first, the seizure memo should ordinarily precede the FIR registration, while subsequent documents can reflect the FIR particulars once the case has been registered. An unexplained contradiction in that sequence can undermine the reliability of the recovery evidence.
The acquittal does not establish that every appearance of an FIR number on a pre-registration document automatically makes a prosecution case false. The evidentiary significance depends on the circumstances and, importantly, on whether the investigating agency provides a credible explanation. In this case, the court found that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming and that the FIR-number discrepancy existed alongside several other material contradictions.
The decision therefore serves as a reminder that in criminal trials involving alleged recovery of counterfeit currency, the prosecution must prove not only that the currency was counterfeit but also that the accused was connected with the recovery and committed the offence with the requisite criminal knowledge or intention. Where the chain of recovery itself becomes doubtful, the benefit of that doubt goes to the accused.
