Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 38 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
Date : 17.12.2024
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of PW-01- Mr. Dilip Arora by advocate Mr.
Jayesh Kanani for the accused :
51. I do not remember whether I had shown or not shown my
Books of Accounts to my Advocate who issued notice dated 07.04.2006
marked Exh.P-7. I do not remember whether my advocate K.H.Giri and
Associate had demanded or not any documents for preparing notice
Exh.P-7. I do not remember that I had not stated my advocate to write
and mention in notice that on 12.11.2005 I paid Rs.20 lakhs and
17.11.2005 I paid Rs.40 lakhs. Now I am shown notice Exh.P-7. It is
true to say that in my notice aforesaid facts of giving Rs.20 lakhs on
12.11.2005 and Rs.40 lakhs on 17.11.2005 is not specifically
mentioned. It is not true to say that as I had not paid any amount on
12.11.2005 and 17.11.2005, to the accused, said fact is not mentioned
in my notice. It is true to say that I do not possess any document to
show that there was any transaction in between me and accused prior
to November 2005. It is true to say that there was no previous
transaction in between me and accused prior to November 2005. It did
happen that I gave application to the Post office for seeking information
whether the notice Exh.P-7 is received by the accused or not. It is not
true to say that inspite of giving letter to the post office, the post office
has not given me any reply to my application or certificate showing that
notice Exh.P-7 is duly served upon the accused. The reply given to my
application or certificate is available with me in my record. It is not true
to say that I have not handed over said reply or certificate given by the
post office to Adv. Giri while filing complaint or affidavit in lieu of
-- 1 of 10 --
39 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
examination in chief. I do not remember whether I had given or not the
office copy of letter given to the post office for getting certificate or
reply to Mr. Giri. Said office copy of letter/application bearing
acknowledgment of post office given by me to post office is available in
my record. I do not remember after how many days approximately I
had given said application to post office after 07.04.2006. I do not
remember whether said application or reply given by the post office is
filed by me on record or not. Mr. Giri Advocate for complainant is
requested not to distract the advocate for accused while conducting
cross examination and restrain himself from giving hint to the witness
for a fair trial.
52. Now I am shown cheque Exh.P-4. I do not know that said
cheque was received by Mr. Gurupreet Singh Bindra at Delhi. It is
correct to say in the year 2006 Mr. Bindra was resident of Delhi. It is
true to say that for resolving the dispute with the accused I had
approached Mr. Bindra at Delhi. It is true to say that at that time Mr.
Bindra had assured me to help to recover the amount from the accused.
I do not remember what suggestions were given by Mr. Bindra to me to
recover the amount. It is true to say that the suggestions given by Mr.
Bindra to me is written down in Exh.P-6 Deed of Settlement dated
20.02.2006. It is true to say that the suggestions given in Settlement
Deed was agreed to me. It is true to say that the documents that is
cheque Exh.P-4 and Settlement Deed Exh.P-6 were in custody of Mr.
Bindra during Feb.2006 to March 2006. Witness volunteers that on
30.03.2006 Mr. Bindra handed over me the cheque Exh.P-4 and copy
of Settlement Deed Exh.P-6. It did happen that in the month of
February 2006 Mr. Bindra had told me that the copy of Settlement
Deed will not be given to me or the accused. It is true to say that I had
-- 2 of 10 --
40 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
accepted and admitted the condition put by Mr. Bindra. It did not
happen that during 20.02.2006 to 30.03.2006 I requested Mr. Bindra
to give me the cheque Exh.P-4 and copy of Settlement Deed Exh. P-6. It
is true to say that there was telephonic discussion as to both documents
during said period in between me and Mr. Bindra. No amount was
given by Mr. Bindra to me on 20.02.2006 or thereafter, taking from the
accused. I do not remember whether I stated or not to Mr. Bindra that I
will not signed any document if I was not given Rs.5 lakhs. It is true to
say that I had read and understood the document of Settlement Deed
Exh.P-6 before executing it. I had not given any instruction to Mr.
Bindra to prepare the Settlement Deed. It is true to say that I had left
everything upon Mr. Bindra as to preparing the draft of Settlement
Deed between me and accused. It is true to say that Mr. Bindra had sent
me the draft of settlement Deed prior to 20.02.2006. I do not
remember whether I have informed or not informed to Mr. Bindra as to
giving Rs.20 lakhs on 12.11.2005 and Rs.40 lakhs on 17.11.2005 while
preparing the draft. I can not assign any reason as to why aforesaid fact
is not mentioned in Settlement Deed Exh.P-6. It is not true to say that
as I had not given said amount on said dates, the same is not returned
in the Settlement Deed.
53. It is true to say that I have not written any letter of
demand to the accused demanding said amount during Dec.2005 to
March 2006. I do not remember that I never instructed my advocate
while drafting complaint and statutory notice Exh.P-7 that the loan was
given only for period of 15 days. It is true to say that it is not
mentioned in demand notice Exh.P-7 that loan is given only for period
of 15 days. It is true to say that the same thing is not mentioned in my
complaint.
-- 3 of 10 --
41 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
54. It is true to say that Harpreetkaur Kocher, M.V.Patel,
M.B.Mulani, Bhadresh Bhatt were never associated with Sail Company.
I do not remember that I have not instructed or instructed while
sending notice and drafting complaint to my advocate that I had
borrowed money from above four persons in order to give to accused. It
is true to say that said fact is not mentioned in demand notice Exh.P-7.
It is true to say that it is also not mentioned in my complaint. I do not
remember that at any point of time I have introduced above four
persons with the accused. I have introduced Mr. Bhadresh to the
accused. I do not remember whether I had introduced Mr. Bhadresh to
the accused prior to November 2005. I do not know that in order to get
some monetary help to the accused from Mr. Bhadresh I had introduced
him to the accused. I had not approached above four persons prior to
November 2005 to the accused in respect of giving loan to him. It is not
true to say that I had not told the above four persons or any one of
them in the year 2005 to advance me money to give it to the accused as
a loan. It is true to say that none of the above four persons had given
me loan by cheque so as to give it to the accused in the year 2005. I
am not looking after the Income Tax matters of any of out of
Harpreetkaur Kocher, M.V.Patel, M.B.Mulani, Bhadresh Bhatt and
K.R.Patil. It is true to say that I had not borrowed money from K.R.Patil
to give loan to the accused. Except Bhadresh Bhatt all above persons
are expired. Only Mr. Bhadresh Bhatt is in my contact. I am not in
contact with Mr. Bhadresh Bhatt since last two years. I never taken Mr.
Bhadresh Bhatt or Harpreetkaur Kocher to Delhi for compromise in
between me and accused. It did not happen that I took accused to the
home of Mr. Bindra at Delhi for compromise. It is true to say that there
is no document to show that I met the accused or there was any
-- 4 of 10 --
42 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
transaction in between me and accused prior to November 2005. It is
true to say that only because of me Bhadresh Bhatt came to know about
the accused. I do not remember whether Mr. Bindra had told me that
accused is owner of property worth rupees in crores. I do not remember
whether Mr. Bindra informed me about good credit worthiness of
accused. It is true to say that whatever information or inquiry as to the
accused was made by me from Mr. Bindra. It is not true to say that I
can not tell on what basis I mentioned in my evidence affidavit as to
the good credit worthiness of the accused. I had not demanded or
called any documents as to the good credit worthiness of the accused
from Mr.Bindra. I had made inquiry prior to November 2005 as to the
credit worthiness of the accused. It is true to say that Mr.Bindra never
told me to give any money to the accused.
55. It is true to say that Rs.60 lakhs was not available in my
bank account in the month of November 2005. Prior to 12.11.2005 I
did not inform Mr. Bindra that I want to advance Rs.60 lakhs to the
accused. It is not true to say that I have not informed any of the four
persons namely Mrs.Harpreetkaur Kocher, M.V.Patel, M.B.Mulani and
Bhadresh Bhatt that I want to advance loan in cash to the accused. I do
not remember the month and year of disclosing said fact to the above
persons. There was no discussion in between me and above four
persons about obtaining security from the accused. I had informed the
above four persons that said loan will not reflect in the Income Tax
Records of those persons in the name of accused. It is true to say that
since year 2005 till as on date none of the above four persons have sent
me any Loan Confirmation Statement to me. I had not shown said
amount of loan from above four persons in my Income Tax Returns and
Balance Sheet since year 2005 to 2016. After year 2016, the Act was
-- 5 of 10 --
43 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
amended and there is no need to prepare Balance Sheet if the gross
receipts from profession of the year is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Now the
limit is Rs.75 lakhs. I do not remember what was my Gross Receipts in
the Financial Year 2005-2006. I do not have any record now. It is true
to say that I had not shown the amount of Rs.60 lakhs due and payable
to the accused in the Balance Sheet for the period year 2005 to 2016
in respect of my profession. Witness volunteers that I had shown said
amount in my personal Balance Sheet for above period. It is true to say
that I was not preparing any document to be submitted to Income Tax
on the basis of personal Balance Sheet.
56. I had not sent any intimation to Mr.Bindra during
20.02.2006 to 30.03.2006. It is true to say that Mr. Bindra never gave
me any copy of intimation referred to para No.4 of my evidence
affidavit. Witness volunteers that Mr. Bindra orally intimated the
accused on 30.03.2006. On 30.03.2006 Mr. Bindra was in Bombay. I do
not remember either of us tried to meet accused on 30.03.2006. It is
true to say that Mr. Bindra informed me that he will give me the cheque
and copy of Settlement after giving intimation to the accused. It is not
true to say that I had accepted the condition put by Mr. Bindra on
20.02.2006. On 20.02.2006 I had not stated to Mr. Bindra to return me
the cheque and Deed of Settlement without intimating accused. It did
not happened that due to Mr. Bindra I had not obtained any document
in writing from the accused on 12.11.2005 and 17.11.2005. I myself
decided not to obtain anything in writing from the accused.
57. It is not true to say that I never demanded Rs.60 lakhs
from the accused. It is not true to say that the contents over cheque
Exh.P-4 were not written or filled in my presence. Witness volunteers
-- 6 of 10 --
44 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
that the contents were written by Mr.Bindra in my presence at the
instance of accused. It is not true to say that I never insisted the
accused write the cheque Exh.P-4 in his hand writing. I do not
remember that Mr.Bindra also not insisted the accused to write the
cheque Exh.P-4 in his hand writing. I do not remember that I had asked
the accused to fill the cheque in his hand writing so as there should not
be any further dispute.
58. I had maintained three bank accounts in the year 2006. It
is not true to say that I had not personally gone in the bank to deposit
cheque Exh.P-4. It is not true to say that I had not filled any pay-in-slip
and counterfoil to deposit the cheque in bank. It is not true to say that
no such counterfoil is issued by the bank putting rubber stamp of the
bank to me. I do not remember that no such pay-in-slip or counterfoil is
given by me to the bank for depositing the cheque. It is true to say that
there is no rubber stamp of bank on the cheque Exh.P-4. But It is not
true to say that as I have not deposited any cheque Exh.P-4, the cheque
do not bears any rubber stamp of the bank. I can not assign any reason
as to why the clearing instructions or marks are not generated on the
back side of the cheque.
59. It is not true to say that till January 2007 I was not
knowing in which bank and branch the cheque Exh.P-4 was deposited. I
do not know why the name of bank and branch in which the cheque
was deposited is not mentioned in notice Exh.P-7. It is true to say that I
have not specifically mentioned in complaint and affidavit in lieu of
Examination in Chief the name of my bank and branch in which the
cheque was deposited. It is not true to say that it is absent as I have
not deposited the cheque in any of my three bank accounts. It is true to
-- 7 of 10 --
45 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
say that I have not received any cheque return memo issued by HDFC
Bank, Kandivali branch. It is true to say that I can not assign any reason
why in cheque return memo Exh.P-5 letter ‘i’ is inserted in my name. It
is not true to say that the memorandum Exh.P-5 is not issued by HDFC
Bank, Santacruz branch. It is not true to say that in order to show
falsely the deposing and dishonour of cheque Exh.P-4 I have fabricated
Exh.P-5.
60. It is not true to say that I had not given any loan at any
point of time to the accused. It is not true to say that the accused had
no legal liability to pay me at any point of time. It is not true to say that
I deposing false that I deposited cheque in my bank account on
03.04.2006. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I received
intimation as to dishonour of cheque on 04.04.2006. It is not true to
say that the notice Exh.P-7 was never sent to the accused by my
advocate. It is not true to say that the address of the accused mentioned
in Exh.P-7 demand notice was never the address of residence of the
accused. I do not remember that myself or Mr.Bindra never insisted to
write the address of the accused at Nikita Palace, above Mega Mark,
Thakur Complex, Mumbai -400 101 in copy of Settlement Deed Exh.P-
6. I do not know why the address of the accused of Nikita Palace is not
mentioned in the Deed of Settlement Exh.P-6. It is not true to say that
there is no signature of accused on the copy of Deed of Settlement
Exh.P-6. It is not true to say that the signatures shown in Exh.P-6 as to
the witnesses are not their signatures. It is not true to say that I have
mentioned the name of Mr. Bhadresh Bhatt without any genuine
intention to examine him. I do not know that in the month of Feb.2006
there was no any assets belonging to the accused and as such it was not
mentioned in Deed of Settlement. I do not remember that myself or Mr.
-- 8 of 10 --
46 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
Bindra had not insisted the accused to give the description of his
property which was to be sold while drafting Settlement Deed. It is true
to say that I was not knowing about the assets mentioned in Clause
No.3 of Settlement Deed Exh.P-6 upto 30.03.2006. I do not remember
that till 30.03.2006 I had not inquired with Mr. Bindra as to whether
the assets mentioned in para 3 in clause 3 was liquidated or not. It is
not true to say that the demand notice Exh.P-7 was not received by the
accused. It is not true to say that I never sent demand notice Exh.P-7 to
the accused by Registered Post. It is not true to say that accused was
never bound to comply the demand notice Exh.P-7. It is not true to say
that as accused was not liable to make payment of the amount
mentioned in cheque Exh.P-4, no chargesheet was filed in connection to
FIR No.116/2006. I do not remember the Criminal Case Number. It did
happen that I made application for re-investigation in connection to FIR
No.116/2006. It is not true to say that as the cheque Exh.P-4, cheque
return memo Exh.P-5 and copy of Settlement Deed Exh.P-6 being false
and fabricated I never submitted it to the police for investigation. It is
not true to say that I have filed false complaint to extort money from
the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 17.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 9 of 10 --
47 C.C.No.169/SS/2006
PW-1 Exh.___
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file evidence are same, word to word as per
the original evidence.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 17.12.2024.
Transcribed and Typed on : 17.12.2024.
Order printed and Signed on : 17.12.2024.
Order Uploaded on : 17.12.2024.
-- 10 of 10 --