Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 8 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
12. 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 : 29.08.2024 Judicial Magistrate, First Class
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Virendra R. Pandey by Advocate Mr.
Zamindar for the accused :
13. I know the accused through Mr.Janak Bhimani who is
Chartered Accountant since year 2012. I do not know whether accused
was studying the course of C.A. and doing Article-ship in the year 2011-
2012. I can not tell what was his age in the year 2011-2012. I can tell
which business were run jointly by accused, Janak Bhimani and others.
They were running business of making investment in other companies.
They were also running construction business.
14. It is true to say that I have filed the cases under section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in this court against other persons
also. It is true to say that I have lent money to various persons. I again
that I invested money with other persons. It is not true to say that I am
doing money lending and giving money to others on interest. It is true
to say that in my affidavit para 2 I have stated that I arranged a sum of
Rs.74 lakhs and lent it to the accused, his uncle and others. It is true to
say that in present case I have not produced any document to show
that I lent Rs.74 lakhs to the accused and persons. I have produced said
documents in complaint No.113 of 2021. I can tell in what mode of
transaction I had given Rs.74 lakhs to the accused. I gave entire money
in cash. I was submitting Income Tax Returns in the year 2011-2012. I
-- 1 of 6 --
9 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
can produce the Income Tax Returns for year 2011 to 2013 if I get it. I
can produce my bank statements for year 2011 to 2013 if I received it.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 29.08.2024 Judicial Magistrate First Class
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 2 of 6 --
10 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
Date : 24.10.2024
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Virendra R. Pandey by Advocate
Mr. Zamindar for the accused :
15. I had not shown the amount given to the accused as a loan
in my Income Tax Returns. The amount of Rs.74 lakhs about the
transaction is not related to present case. I have filed the document to
show giving Rs.74 lakhs in another case No.113/SS/2021. I have not
given money to the accused in present case. It is true to say that I have
not produced any document to show giving Rs.74 lakhs to the accused.
16. It is true to say that in the Partnership business started at
Lucknow Janak Bhimani and Fanil Bhimani were partner for 60% share
and I was partner for 40% Share. It is not true to say that both had
invested Rs.18 lakhs for the said development business under
partnership at Lucknow. It is true to say that both had not received any
profit in said business and as such took retirement from Partnership
firm. It is true to say that a Retirement Deed is executed and I have also
signed it. No profit was earned till date from said Partnership business
and as such I have not given any amount towards profit and
compensation to Janak Bhimani and Fanil Bhimani. It is true to say that
accused had obtained Over Draft facility from Indian Bank in the year
2016. Witness voluntarily states that he introduced the accused with
the person of bank for getting Over Draft facility. I do not know
whether a condition was put before accused that after getting Over
Draft facility he will not do transaction with any other bank than Indian
Bank. It is true to say that I had introduced accused with Mr. Kale for
said facility. I do not know what was agreed in between Mr. Satish Kale
-- 3 of 6 --
11 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
and accused for repayment of loan. It is not true to say that I had given
my shop towards collateral security for Over Draft facility. It is true to
say that the shop was owned by Mr. Satish Kale. It is not true to say
that I am running said shop belonging to Mr. Satish Kale. It is not true
to say that Mr. Satish Kale and myself stopped paying the our share of
installment to the bank. I do not know whether accused suffered great
loss due to not payment of the amount of our share towards installment
of the bank by us. It is true to say that accused has sent me E-mails
asking to pay our share towards installment. There was no
communication in between me and accused on Whatsapp. It is not true
to say that accused started asking me to pay compensation. It is not
true to say that therefore I started threatening the accused by saying
that I will file case against him for compensation.
17. It is true to say that at the time of retirement I agreed to
give property of 2500 sq.ft. to Janak Bhimani and Fanil Bhimani. It is
true to say that till date I have not given the property of 2500 sq.ft. At
Lucknow to them. Still no construction is made. It is not true to say that
accused has no liability to pay money to me. It is not true to say that I
was to pay money and property to the accused at Lucknow. It is true to
say that I had regular visiting terms in the office of Janak Bhimani and
Fanil Bhimani. It is not true to say that I have stolen or taken the
cheque Exh.17 from the office of accused without his knowledge. I do
not remember whether accused had sent me E-mail on 28.12.2020. I
will have to check whether in said E-mail accused had stated me that I
had stolen the cheque and trying to commit theft of money. I do not
remember whether accused had sent message on my Whatsapp
informing me that I have stolen his cheque on 24.12.2020. It is not true
to say that I am deposing false that I do not remember whether accused
-- 4 of 6 --
12 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
had sent me E-mail and sent message on Whatsapp informing me that I
have stolen his cheque and illegally withdrawing money from his
account. Now I am shown cheque return memo Exh.18. It is true to say
that the cheque was returned with reason ‘drawers signature differs’. It
is not true to say that I forged the signature of the accused on cheque
Exh.17 and presented for realization. It is not true to say that accused
has also filed complaint against me for committing theft of his cheque
at Vakola police station. It is not true to say that accused has never
given me any cheque towards any liability. It is not true to say that I
have misused the cheque of the accused. It is true to say that I have
filed present complainant against only accused Fanil Bhimani. It is true
to say that I have sent the statutory notice only to the accused. It is not
true to say that accused had no legal liability to pay any amount of
compensation to me. It is not true to say that I have filed false case
against him. It is not true to say that I am deposing false on oath
against the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 24.10.2024 Judicial Magistrate First Class
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 5 of 6 --
13 C.C.No.114/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.15
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 : 24.10.2024.
Transcribed and Typed on : 24.10.2024.
Order printed and Signed on : 24.10.2024.
Order Uploaded on : 24.10.2024.
-- 6 of 6 --