The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (CMM) has acquitted 71-year-old Kantilal Daulat Mandole of all charges in a high-profile forgery case involving the alleged use of a fake letterhead of senior political leader Sharad Pawar to push for the reinstatement of terminated police officers.

Mandole, along with five other constables, had been convicted by the Sessions Court in 1996 and sentenced to three years of imprisonment in a custodial death of a suspect in 1990 at the D N Nagar police station. Following their convictions, they were dismissed from service.

The court, presided over by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vinod R. Patil, held in its order that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mandole had forged or used any fake documents to deceive government officials or mislead the state administration.

Mandole had been booked under Sections 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in 2003, and charges were framed in 2006.

According to the prosecution, a letter dated January 5, 2002—allegedly  written on the letterhead of Sharad Pawar—recommended the reinstatement of three terminated police constables: Dilip Parmar, Gopal Jadhav, and Vinod Suryavanshi. The letter reached the Home Department via the office of the then Deputy Chief Minister, Chhagan Bhujbal.

However, officials raised suspicions about the authenticity of the letter due to irregularities in its language and format. Upon verification, Sharad Pawar’s private secretary confirmed that the letter had never been issued by the leader and recommended police action. An FIR was then registered at the Marine Drive Police Station in 2003.

The probe, taken over by DCB CID Unit-I, led to Mandole’s arrest and the seizure of alleged forged documents, a typewriter, and a Xerox machine. According to investigators, Mandole, a former police constable, had forged the letter in an attempt to aid the reinstatement of himself and others into the force.

In its judgment, the court noted that the key witness, Musa Gani Chauhan—the owner of the typing shop allegedly used to create the forged documents—turned hostile. Other essential witnesses, including typist Pravina Varhadkar and the panch witnesses, could not be produced in court. “No direct evidence was found linking Mandole to the act of forgery. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had personally created or used the forged letter,” the court stated.

“While the accused may have been in possession of some official-looking documents, the prosecution did not establish a clear chain of events or culpability. In the absence of this evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the court observed.