Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 8 C.C.No.47/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.16
13. Whatever stated by me in my evidence affidavit is true
and correct and in token thereof I have signed the affidavit.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 16.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class)
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Mohammed Amir Khan by advocate Mr.
Vishwakarma for the accused :
14. The complaint is filed by Mr.Pankaj Eldandi. I am
authorised to represent the complainant company by the Resolution
dated 15.02.2019. It is not true to say that I do not know anything
about the facts of the accused. I can tell how many directors are there
in complainant company. There are two directors. Both directors were
present for the Board Meeting. It is true to say that there is only
signature of one director on the Board Resolution Exh.18 and Minute
Book Exh.19. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that both
directors were present for the Board Meeting dated 15.02.2019. It is
not true to say that no such Resolution was ever passed. It is not true to
say that I have filed false and forged copy of Resolution and Minute
Book. It is true to say that I have not produced the Article of
Association or Memorandum of Association of the complainant
company to show that any one of the director can sign the Board
Resolution. It is not true to say that I am not legally empowered or
authorised to depose on behalf of the company.
15. I was knowing the accused through our Sales person. It is
true to say that I have not obtained the Purchase Order from the
accused. It was taken by Mr.Pankaj Eldandi. I do not know who was Mr.
Mukund Ambekar. It is not true to say that Mukund Ambekar has
-- 1 of 4 --
9 C.C.No.47/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.16
obtained the cheque as a security from the accused. It is not true to say
that whatever transaction taken place in between complainant and
accused was with Mr. Mukund Ambekar and not with Mr. Pankaj
Eldandi. It is not true to say that therefore, I do not know the facts of
the transaction. It is true to say that as per Government Rule whenever
the goods more than worth Rs.1 lakh are sold and supplied, the same
are to be supplied by E-Way Bill. It is true to say that I have not
produced any E-Way Bill with my evidence. There was oral purchase
order from the accused. It is not true to say that the goods were not
supplied to the accused. It is not true to say that accused has not
received the goods. It is true to say that the vehicle number is not
mentioned in the Tax Invoices cum Delivery Challans produced by me.
It is true to say that the vehicle number usually is mentioned on the Tax
Invoice cum Delivery challans. It is true to say that the name of the
driver and his number is also not mentioned in the Tax Invoices. It is
true to say that I have not mentioned the name of transport in the Tax
Invoices. It is not true to say that I have supplied any goods to the
accused and produced false, fabricated invoices. Accused had paid
Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant after cheque bounce of the dishonour
of cheque. It is not true to say that after dishonour of cheque accused
had given twelve cheques.
16. It is true to say that there is no signature of authorized
person of the company on the notice Exh.26. It is not true to say that
the notice was not sent as per the instructions of complainant company.
It is not true to say that the notice is infructuous for want of signature
and seal of the complainant. I can not tell that there is no signature of
the accused on the acknowledgment card of the Post. It is not true to
say that accused has not received any notice prior to filing the
-- 2 of 4 --
10 C.C.No.47/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.16
complaint. Now I am shown cheque Exh.24. The hand writing as to the
contents over cheque Exh.24 is different than the signature of the
accused. It is true to say that the writing as to contents of the cheque is
in two different inks. It is not true to say that we have obtained the
cheque initially when the distributorship was allotted. It is not true to
say that we have misused the cheque given towards security to the
complainant. It is not true to say that there are no outstanding dues in
regards to the subject cheque. It is not true to say that I have filed false
case against the accused despite no liability in existence.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 16.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 3 of 4 --
11 C.C.No.47/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.16
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 : 16.12.2024.
Transcribed and Typed on : 16.12.2024.
Order printed and Signed on : 16.12.2024.
Order Uploaded on : 16.12.2024.
-- 4 of 4 --