Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Evidence
Pdf Text: C.C. No.4301512/SC/2023 ...01... Date: 29/09/2025.
C.W. No.1 on S.A.
Cross-examination of C. W. No.1 Bhavanishankar Jangid on oath, on
behalf of accused by Advocate Shri.Chetan Bhosale :-
1. I have taken education upto B.Com. I know little English.
I have given all information and instructions to my Advocate for making
averments in the complaint as well as in my evidence affidavit. Since
20 years I am in business of Om Trading Company, which is a
proprietary firm. It is true that this business is in relation to wood and
wood material. It is true that besides this, I have no other business. It
is true that the accounting work is done by our C.A. Manish Parmar is
our C.A.
2. The turn over of our Om Trading Company for the year
2021-2022 and 2022-2023 is approximately near about Rs.5-6 Crores.
In both these years, I have paid GST and has filed income tax returns. It
is not true that I know all the persons in the business of wood in
Malad(E.). Witness states that he knows every person with whom he is
having transactions in Malad(E.) and Malad(W.). It is true that Sunil
Lodha, Nitesh Shah, Shailesh Seth and Nirmal Shah came to my office,
situated at Malad(West). It is not true that they had first time come to
my office.
3. All the above named four persons came to my office for
upcoming project discussion. It is true that they were partners in the
upcoming project. They did not tell me the name of upcoming project.
As well, I did not ask them the name of upcoming project. The meeting
took place for about 15-20 minutes. In that meeting no agreement was
executed. No signatures were made by any of us on any of the
document. No document was exchanged on that day. It is not true that
I find it appropriate to become a partner in the upcoming projects of the
-- 1 of 3 --
..02..
above named 4 persons. It is true that I had a profit of about 2-3% on
the goods supplied to the above named four persons. It is true that it is
not mentioned in the demand notice that I had a profit of about 2-3%.
It is not true that the goods were there in our godown even though they
were sold to the accused.
4. It is not true that Sunil Lodha had agreed to pay the rent of
godown for keeping the purchased goods. Now the F.I.R. copy shown to
me. It is the same which was filed by me against accused Sunil Lodha.
It is at Exh.27. It is true that the story narrated in the F.I.R. is the same
as in the present complaint. It is true that whatever I stated to the
police, it was mentioned in the F.I.R. and thereafter I signed it. The
contents in the F.I.R. now read over to me are true and correct. Those
are mentioned as per my say. As per that F.I.R. my godown was given
on rent for one month to accused Sunil Lodha. Witness states that it
was in the month of April, 2023. The rent agreed for one month was
Rs.40,000/-.
5. It is true that it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the wood of
which bill was not prepared was taken away by me from that godown. I
took away that wood in the month of May, 2023. It is true that Police
Officer Amit Shitole was investigating the F.I.R. registered by me. After
F.I.R., I did not go along with the Investigation Officer on the spot. No
spot panchanama was prepared in my presence. Moreover, nothing was
recovered in my presence from the spot. It is true I had filed one
private case in 68th Court, Borivali for the same transaction against five
persons. It is true that no directions were given in that case for F.I.R.
registration. It is not true that police officer Amit Shitole found that
accused Kailas Devi has no role in the crime.
6. It is true that there is no mention in the complaint and in
-- 2 of 3 --
C.C. No.4301512/SC/2023 ...03... Date: 29/09/2025.
C.W. No.1 on S.A.
the affidavit that on which date the goods were sold and delivered. It is
true that for delivery of goods a single tempo/vehicle is used. It is not
true that this tempo is a three wheeler. It is not true that in a tempo in
a single trip goods to the extent of 120 cft. cannot be loaded. It is not
true that moreover goods to the extent of 478 cft. cannot be loaded in a
tempo at once. It is true that there is no signature on all the invoices.
7. It is true that there is no date and time beneath the
signature on all the bills/ invoices. Witness volunteers that there is
signature of the person authorized by the accused. I know personally
every person who is authorized by accused. Some signatures on
invoices are of Ahmed and other signatures are of Pintu and Sunil
Lodha. Witness states that Ahmed is Mukadam of the accused. Pintu is
Manager of accused and Sunil Lodha is son of the accused.
8. It is not true that Ahmed, Pintu and Sunil are not working
at the office or shop of the accused. It is not true that none of them
have received the goods. It is not true that no goods are delivered to
them. It is not true that all the invoices filed on record are false and
bogus.
(Cross-examination is deferred till next date on the request of both the
Ld. Counsels.)
Before me,
kdc
( S. A. KHALANE )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai
Date: 29/09/2025.
-- 3 of 3 --