Order 3

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: Case No.167/SS/2020.
C.W. No.1.
Exh.19.
-27-
Cross-examination resumed on:-
25. Now Exh.68 is shown to me. I have checked that our
company has issued or not Exh.68. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false. It is not true to say that Exh.68 is the reply letter to
the letter issued by the accused on 05.07.2015. It is not true to say
that the desputed cheques were given to the complainant company
towards security. It is not true to say that in the letter filed at Exh.68
the complainant company agreed that without written permission of
the accused these security cheques will not deposited for incashment.
It is true to say that I have mentioned the date, amount in words and
amounts in figure on the desputed cheques. The witness volunteers
that I have mentioned the said details after asking the accused. It is
not true to say that I had not asked to accused about filling of the
said details and I missused those cheques.
26. It is not true to say that the accused had disputed the
amount of Rs.25,92,065/- vide Exh.31. It is true to say that the
accused had sent leaser account statement to the complainant
company along with Exh.31. It is true to say that as per the leaser
account statement at Exh.32 the outstanding amount was
Rs. 23,98,983.98/-. Witness volunteers state that the amount was as
per the customer. A contents of Exh.34 B are true and correct. The
witness again states that the contents are not correct. The contents of
para no.2 of Exh.34 B are not correct. The complainant company has
not replied to Exh.34 B in writing after 03.10.2018. It is not true to
say that the accused has issued letters to the complainant company
on 01.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 25.06.2018 and 10.01.2019. It is not
-- 1 of 3 --
Case No.167/SS/2020.
C.W. No.1.
Exh.19.
- 28-
true to say that the said letters were marked to me personally. The
witness states that those documents are forged one. It is not true to
say that the said letters bears the seal of the company and
acknowledgment of the company’s official. Said letters are marked at
Exh. 73 to Exh. 76. It is not true to say that the accused sustained the
loss of Rs.24,21,217/- by that goods. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that the complainant company has not received the
letters Exh.73 to Exh. 76 from the accused.
Question – You have not issued credit note of the goods to the
accused?
Answer – Since there was no dispute, how can I issued the credit note
to the accused.
27. It is true to say that the contents of Para no. 5, 7, 9, 10 and
17 of my examination in chief are not mentioned in my complaint. I
am unable to state the reason why those paragraphs are mentioned in
my complaint. I am unable to state the reason why the leaser
accounts statements are not attached with the complaint. I am unable
to state the reason why the documents filed at Exh.28 A to Exh.34B
are not attached with the complaint.
28. It is not true to say that the accused had issued a cheques
towards security and the accused is not liable to pay any amount to
the complainant company.
Question - It is the policy of your company that you receive the
cheques towards security before entering into the transaction?
-- 2 of 3 --
Case No.167/SS/2020.
C.W. No.1.
Exh.19.
- 29 -
Answer – It is dependent on deal to deal and person to person.
In the present case we have not received the security cheque from the
accused. It is not true to say that on 05.07.2015 the accused had
given desputed cheques towards security. It is not true to say that the
accused was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant
company on 05.07.2015. It is not true to say that we have admitted
vide letter dated 15.07.2015 that the accused have given security
cheques. It is not true to say that we have not compensated
Rs.24,21,217/- to the accused.
Question – In the year 2019 the home branch of IDFC First bank was
at Fort?
Answer - I have to check it.
I will try to confirm the home branch on next date. It is not
true to say that I am deposing false.
Cross examination is over.
Ld Advocate representing the complainant wants to re-
examine the complainant on the documents confronted to the witness
during the cross examination. Re-examination is permitted.
Re-examination by the Ld Advocate of the complainant.
R.O.A.C.
(B.S. Sankpal)
Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Date : 18.08.2026 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --