After 36 Years: Mumbai Court Finally Discharges Two in Epic Fake Dollar Case
Share- Nishadil
- January 09, 2026
- 0 Comments
- 3 minutes read
- 6 Views
Decades-Long Legal Ordeal Ends: Mumbai Court Discharges Accused in 1988 Fake US Dollars Case
A 36-year legal saga in Mumbai concludes with the discharge of two individuals, one posthumously, in a high-profile 1988 fake US dollars case due to insufficient evidence.
Imagine being caught up in a legal battle for 36 years. It sounds like something out of a slow-burn movie, doesn't it? Well, that's precisely what happened in Mumbai, where a case involving a staggering cache of fake US dollars finally saw two individuals discharged, decades after their initial arrest. It's a truly remarkable testament to the glacial pace some judicial processes can take.
This whole incredible story began way back in the vibrant, bustling year of 1988. That’s when Mumbai police, following a tip-off, stumbled upon something truly extraordinary. They raided a flat nestled in the Versova area and what they found wasn't just a few counterfeit notes, oh no. We're talking about a colossal sum: a jaw-dropping 2.5 million fake US dollars! Along with the bogus currency, they uncovered what looked like a full-blown counterfeiting operation – printing materials, various chemicals, photographic negatives, the whole shebang. It must have been quite a scene for the officers.
Three men were initially caught in this rather significant dragnet: R.K. Kesarwani, Vinod Kumar Singh, and Brijendra Singh. The charges leveled against them were anything but minor, running the gamut from forgery and cheating to various sections of the formidable Indian Penal Code. On the surface, it looked like an open-and-shut case of a major international counterfeiting ring, destined for a relatively swift resolution.
But as is often the way with legal systems, especially those that stretch across decades, things didn't exactly move at lightning speed. Fast forward, and forward, and forward again through the years… applications for discharge by Kesarwani and Singh were repeatedly rejected by the trial court. First in 2004, then again in 2011. Can you imagine the frustration? It must have felt like an endless loop, a legal purgatory where clarity remained perpetually out of reach.
Then, a glimmer of hope appeared on the horizon in 2016. The Bombay High Court, perhaps recognizing the truly glacial pace, stepped in and issued a directive. They instructed the trial court to revisit those discharge pleas. This wasn't just a minor procedural point; it was a clear signal to genuinely consider whether there was still a viable, prosecutable case after all these years of back-and-forth.
And now, in 2024, after what can only be described as an astonishing 36-year wait, Metropolitan Magistrate S.R. Khatawkar has finally brought some closure. He discharged both R.K. Kesarwani (who, sadly, is no longer alive to witness this long-awaited outcome) and Vinod Kumar Singh. The core reason for this decision? A resounding lack of credible evidence and, crucially, the prosecution's complete failure to present a compelling case over all these years. It really makes you wonder about the journey of that evidence, or lack thereof, over three decades. Meanwhile, one of the original accused, Brijendra Singh, remains absconding, a lingering shadow on this truly protracted saga.
Thirty-six years is an entire generation. For Kesarwani and Singh, it meant a significant portion of their lives overshadowed by this case. While justice, in a sense, has finally been served for those discharged, it profoundly highlights the immense strain, the sheer uncertainty, and sometimes the agonizing slowness of the judicial process. It’s a story that reminds us that even after decades, the wheels of justice, however slowly, do eventually turn, sometimes with a quiet creak that echoes for years.
Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on