Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: 17 C.C.No.431/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.12
16. 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 : 08.12.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Anita Choithramani by advocate Ms.
Nisha Narayankar for the accused :
17. I am housewife. I have filed present case for
Rs.10,00,000/-. My husband had said amount with him to give it. I had
given the amount through Midas Finance Services belonging to
Jethanand Rohera through RTGS to the accused. I met with accused
number of times. I had paid said amount on 02.08.2017. The broker
has Money Lending Licence. I will verify whether the broker Jethanand
Rohera has money lending licence. I can ask him to produce the Money
Lending Licence. I will try to examine him if possible. I have shown
Rs.10,00,000/- loan given to accused in my I.T. return. I will have to
verify whether I possess the Income Tax Return for the year 2016-2017.
it is true to say that Bill of Exchange Exh.17 now shown to me is given
by Midas Finance Services to me. It is true to say that there is no seal
and signature over Exh.19.
18. I do not know whether cheque Exh.18 was given to me by
Midas Finance Services. It is not true to say that I have no personal
knowledge about alleged transaction. I used to accompany my husband
and he used to tell me. It is not true to say that I never met with the
accused. It is not true to say that whatever transaction taken place is in
between accused and Midas Finance Services. It is not true to say that I
am cheating accused in collusion with Jethanand Rohera, owner of
-- 1 of 4 --
18 C.C.No.431/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.12
Midas Finance Services. It is not true to say that accused is not liable to
pay any amount.
Cross examination deferred on the request of advocate for
the accused till next date for production of I.T.R. and Money Lending
Licence by the complainant.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 08.12.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 05.07.2024
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Anita Choithramani by advocate
Ms. Kimaya Keni holding for Ms. Nisha Narayankar for the accused :
19. There is no necessity of seal and signature on the document
issued by the bank. There is no seal and signature on cheque return
memo at Exh.19. It is not true to say that I have produced false and
fabricated cheque return memo. Accused has not signed the cheque
Exh.18 in my presence or before me. It is not true to say that I have
implicated the accused joining in hands with Midas Finance falsely. It is
not true to say that cheque Exh.18 is not at all issued by the accused to
me. It is not true to say that Midas Finance gave me said cheque and
other false documents. It is not true to say that I have forged the
signature of accused. It is not true to say that the date on the cheque is
put by me. It is not true to say that I have deposited the cheque
purposefully prior to due date by putting earlier date. It is not true to
say that accused is not liable to pay any amount to me. The amount of
-- 2 of 4 --
19 C.C.No.431/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.12
Rs.10 lakhs was given to accused through my account directly into
account of accused by RTGS. I am knowing Midas Finance since year
2014. My husband used to give money on interest to the parties
through Midas after meeting accident. As such I am knowing Midas
Finance since year 2014. We were not possessing Money Lending
Licence as the Licence was not required. Witness volunteer that
payment was used to be made on Bill of Exchange. It is not true to say
that I am not knowing accused Tarachand Chawala. I was not knowing
accused prior to the transaction in question.
20. I do not remember whether accused executed his signature on
Bill of Exchange Exh.17 before me or not. It is not true to say that Bill
of Exchange is not signed by the accused and as such I do not
remember. It is not true to say that Bill of Exchange and signature of
the accused is forged by me. The Bill of Exchange Exh.17 is given by
Midas Financial Services to us. It is not true to say that myself and
Midas Financial Services has forged the Bill of Exchange joining in
hands to falsely implicate the accused in criminal case. It is not true to
say that Midas Finance has prepared the false Bill of Exchange. I am
going to examine Midas Financial Services.
21. It is not true to say that accused has informed me not to
present subject cheque upto certain date. It is not true to say that
accused has told me not to deposit cheque as he was suffering loss in
the business. It is not true to say that despite informing me
intentionally I deposited the cheque on 06.01.2020. It is not true to say
that I intentionally deposited the cheque despite receiving information
for not presenting said cheque with a view to get it dishonour. It is not
true to say that not legal liability arises on the part of accused on the
-- 3 of 4 --
20 C.C.No.431/SS/2020
CW-1 Exh.12
date of cheque as he has informed me not to present the cheque for
realization.
22. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that accused gave
me subject cheque and Bill of Exchange. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that accused is liable to make cheque payment to me. It
is not true to say that I am deposing false that I paid Rs.10 lakhs to the
accused. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that no signature
is required on the bank memo. It is not true to say that I have filed false
documents joining in hand with Midas Financial Services.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 05.07.2024 Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 4 --