Order 6

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 6 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
10. 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 : 26.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-02 Mr. Baijnath Shah by advocate
MrA.K.Mishra for accused :
11. I am Bachelor of Arts. I know the accused since last 20 years
being my neighbour. My age is 28 years. It is true to say that in
evidence affidavit I have mentioned my age as 32 years. My correct age
is 28 years. I am serving as a security guard. Before joining as a security
guard I had worked at various places with different nature of jobs. I
have never worked in the shop of accused or in front of her shop. It is
not true to say that I was serving in the shop of accused in between
2013 to 2016. It is not true to say that Sheshkumar was also working
with me during said period on the shop of accused. I do not know who
is Sheshkumar. I do not know where the shop of accused is located. My
address mentioned in affidavit in lieu of Examination in chief is my
current residential address. I am staying at this address of Delhi-7 since
year 2021. Prior to it I was staying at Kishanganj, Block No.143, at
Delhi. I came at the address of Kishanganj in the year 2010. prior to it I
was staying near Safjarjang Railway station, Delhi in chawl. Accused
was my neighbor during 1985 to 2010 in said chawl. I can tell present
address of stay of accused. Accused is staying at Barar Square Railway
Colony, adjacent to Barar Square Railway Station. I can not tell exact
date but accused is staying at above address since year 2010.The
distance between Kishanganj and Barar Square is around 15 km. It is
-- 1 of 8 --
7 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
not true to say that it is incorrect that accused is my neighbor since
2010. Complainant is husband of my sister. Both married in the year
2008. besides present matter, one another complaint/criminal case is
pending at Delhi in between complainant and accused. It is true to say
that my family members have filed Civil Suit for recovery of money
against accused at District Judge, Central at Tishazari Court, Delhi.
Said case is for recovery of Rs.8 lakhs from the accused which was
taken by her husband. I had introduced the complainant with accused.
At that time I was staying at Kishanganj, Delhi. We had visiting terms
with each other.
12. It is true to say that in paragraph No.2 of my evidence affidavit I
have stated that accused and her husband is residing in my
neighourhood. It is typing mistake. Accused had demanded Rs.5 lakhs
from complainant. She personally asked for money when complainant
had at our house for the purpose of purchasing land for business.
Accused had never came to Mumbai for demanding money. There was
no prior monetary transaction in between accused and complainant.
Rs.5 lakhs was paid in cash to accused. I do not recollect date and
month of giving money but it was paid in the year 2014. It is true to
say that in my affidavit in lieu of examination in chief I have not stated
anywhere that said amount was paid in the year 2014. Rs.5 lakhs were
paid in 6 to 7 installments. Said amount was paid in installments of
Rs.1,50,000/-,Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, and rest Rs.50,000/- on
various dates. Said amount was paid at my house. Third installment
was paid at house of accused. I do not remember denomination of
currency notes. My sister’s husband that is complainant gave money. It
is true to say that complainant is permanent resident of Mumbai. He
-- 2 of 8 --
8 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
used to visit Delhi personally at every time for giving money. Myself,
Bechan Sahu, accused, her husband and my mother were present at the
time of parting money of first installment. I do not know at present
where Bechan Sahu is residing. It is not true to say that Bechan Sahu is
my real cousin brother. Myself, Bechan Sahu, accused, her husband
and my mother were present at the time of parting money of second
and third installments. Accused had not issued any receipt at the time
of receiving amount of first installment. Accused had not issued any
receipt at the time of receiving amount of further installments. Witness
volunteers that everytime entry was made in diary. The diary is
destroyed at the time of preparing Promissory Note. It is not true to say
that I was getting salary of Rs.7,000/- per month in the shop of
accused. I never worked in her shop. I do not know that accused was in
need of Rs.1 lakh for her shop. I do not know Sheshkumar. It is not
true to say that accused had asked me to make arrangement of money
alongwith Sheshkumar. It is not true to say that at that time I had
arranged Rs.1 lakh from Kavita Odissawali.
13. Now I am shown Non Judicial Stamp dated 13.10.2017. It is
true to say that the photograph pasted on said Non Judicial Stamp (e-
stamp) is my photograph. It is not true to say that the signature named
'बैजनाथ' is my signature. It is not true to say that the hand writing
attached on next page of the stamp is my handwriting and signature.
The the document of e-stamp alongwith disputed hand writing, photo
copy of Aadhar Card is marked as Article-‘A’ collectively for
identification purpose only. It is not true to say that I have filed false
affidavit of evidence on oath. I know that I will be liable for perjury/
giving false evidence if my evidence is found false. There is no
-- 3 of 8 --
9 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
signature of husband of accused on any paper produced in the
proceeding.
14. Accused had never demanded money to complainant on phone
call. It is not true to say that there was no direct interaction as to giving
or taking money in between complainant and accused. Complainant
used to come at our house and demand money from accused by calling
her to our house. Whenever accused is in need of money she used to
tell us. It is not true to say that I had made arrangement of money
given to the accused.
15. It is true to say that in paragraph No.4 of my evidence affidavit I
have stated that complainant sent notice dated 05.10.2017 through his
advocate at residential address of accused and at the address of her
husband’s office. Now I am shown notice Exh.26 dated 05.10.2017. The
notice is the same which was sent to the accused. I do not know
reading English. Therefore I can not tell whether there is no averments
made in the notice as to the cheque. I do not know that there is nothing
mentioned about the cheque in the notice Exh.26. It is true to say that I
have stated in my examination in chief para No.4 that the notice dated
05.10.2017 was received by the officers of husband of accused. I came
to know about the same as accused herself told me of receiving notice
by the officers of her husband. I do not know whether accused had
given reply to the notice. It is not true to say that accused had given
notice reply to the complainant. It is not true to say that said notice
reply was prepared before me in my presence. It is not true to say that
accused had asked me after receiving notice who is Mr. Saroj Kumar
Sah. Witness volunteers that on that day accused had given the cheque.
It is not true to say that after receiving notice I had continuous
-- 4 of 8 --
10 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
telephonic conversation with accused, her daughter and her son Suraj.
As I have never talked on phone with accused, her daughter and son, it
is not true that I had stated her that as she gave reply to the notice now
Kavita Odissawali will not spare father of accused. ( तूमने नोटीस उत्तर दिया
है तो अब कदिता ओडीसााली अब तेरे बाप को भी नही छोडेगी ). I do not know
whether such recording is available with the accused.
16. ASI Surender Singh from Narayana Police Station had made
inquiry with me in respect of complaint against Kavita Odissawali filed
by the accused. I do not remember that at the time of inquiry I had
told ASI Surender that as I was not having Rs.1 lakhs with me I had
borrowed Rs.1 from my neighbor Kavita Oddisswali in order to give to
accused Anarkali. ( मेरे पास उस समय पैसे कम पड रहे थे तो मै एक लाखरु पये अपने
पडोंसी क दिता से उधार लाया था ). I do not remember that such statement
was given by me in said inquiry to ASI Surender in the month of June
2019 and July 2019. It is not true to say that in order to repay the
amount to Kavita I always used to take Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from
accused.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 26.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 5 of 8 --
11 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
Date : 29.07.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-02 Mr. Baijnath Shah by advocate
S.S.Sahu for advocate A.K.Mishra for accused :
17. Saroj Kumar is husband of my real sister. They married in the
year 2008 or 2009 at Madhubani Dist.Bihar. Accused and her family
members were not present to said marriage. It is not true to say that
there were no close relations in between complainant and accused. It is
not true to say that there was no transaction in between complainant
and accused. I do not know at what place accused was to purchase
land. I do not know what was the exact area of the proposed
purchasing land by the accused. I do not know from whom accused was
to purchase said land. It is not true to say that I have stated falsely in
paragraph No.3 of my examination in chief that accused was in need of
money for purchasing land at Delhi. I do not remember exact dates of
giving money in installments to the accused. The money given to the
accused was with the husband of my sister out of sale of his car. I do
not remember which car was with Mr.Saroj Kumar and which was sold.
It is not true to say that I am deposing false that complainant gave
money to accused by selling his car. I can not tell what was age of
complainant at the time of his marriage with my sister. I may be of 12
years of age at the time of marriage. I can not tell what was age of
complainant when he gave money to the accused. Even I do not know
his today’s age. Ram Kewal husband of accused was also present at
every transaction. I do not remember how much amount was given in
presence of Mr.Ram Kewal. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
that money was given in presence of Mr. Ram Kewal. Actually no
amount was given on the date of executing receipt. Money was already
-- 6 of 8 --
12 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
given prior to executing receipt. Husband of accused Mr. Ram Kewal
has not signed the receipt. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
that Ram Kewal was present for transaction. It is not true to say that I
am deposing false that his signature was not taken as a witness. It is
not true to say that no such transaction had ever taken place. I can tell
at which places Mr. Ram Kewal was posted in Railway. Nijamuddhin
was the place of Head Quarter and he was serving at Saptarjang
Railway Station.
18. My father was also serving in Railway and my mother was
housewife. My father was posted at New Delhi Railway station. The
men brought by Anarkali wrote the receipt. It is true to say that accused
has not written the receipt in her hand writing. It is not true to say that
Kavita Oddisawali had obtained signatures of accused on blank paper
in the year 2014. It is not true to say that complainant misused said
blank paper and prepared a false receipt in the year 2017.
19. I know that complainant had sent notice to the accused. He told
me about the same. I do not know whether the notice contents any
name of witness or cheque. It is true to say that my mother has filed
complaint for Rs.8 lakhs against Ram Kewal at Tishazari Court. I do not
remember on which date accused had approached to me for demanding
money. Complainant is residing at Vakola Pipeline behind Vakola police
station near Sai Baba Temple. I do not know who is Kavita Oddisawali.
It is not true to say that complainant has filed false case against
accused. It is not true to say that there was no transaction in between
complainant and accused. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
out of love to help complainant. It is not true to say that accused was
never demanded Rs.5 lakhs nor complainant gave the same to her
-- 7 of 8 --
13 C.C.No.3143/SS/2017
CW-02 Exh.23
either in lump-sum or in piecemeal.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 29.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
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 : 29.07.2025.
Typed on : 29.07.2025.
Evidence printed and Signed on : 29.07.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 29.07.2025.
-- 8 of 8 --