Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 7 C.C.No.374/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
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 : 18.10.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Piyush G. Gundana by advocate Sanjay Nerurkar
for accused :
17. I am Power of Attorney Holder of my nephew Jigar Dhirendra
Nandola. He is 38 years old. It is not true to say that Power of Attorney
Exh.17 is not given to the represent him in present case. At present he is
staying at Canada. He is staying at Canada since year 2015. He asked me to
appear in present complaint as a Power of Attorney Holder in the year 2017
when he had been to India. In India he was staying at Santacruz alongwith
me. He gave Power of Attorney in the end of year 2017. I can produce
the proof of his presence in India on the date of executing the Power of
Attorney. It is not true to say that Power of Attorney is bogus. It is not true to
say that no such Power of Attorney is given to me.
18. He was dentist and had clinic at Mira Road. My nephew was
submitting Income Tax Returns. The alleged transaction is reflected in his
Income Tax Returns. The accused Rita Nayak is running a construction
business. I can produce the proof that Rita Nayak is running a construction
business. It is not true to say that Rita Nayak is Principal of Architectural
college and I am deposing false that she is in construction business. My
nephew original complainant told me about giving friendly loan to the
accused before leaving India. My father and the complainant had gone to her
to give the cheque of friendly loan issued to the accused. Friendly loan
means she demanded the amount and it was given being friend to her. I have
produced bill of exchange a written document to show that a friendly loan
-- 1 of 5 --
8 C.C.No.374/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
was given to the accused. There is no document of agreement as to advancing
friendly loan. It is true to say that there is no name of accused Rita Nayak on
the document of bill of exchange Exh.18 now shown to me. I do not know
what is meaning of ‘notice of dishonor waived’. It is not true to say that none
of the signatures of over bill of exchange Exh.18 belongs to accused. It is not
true to say that the bill of exchange is a bogus and back dated, fabricated
document.
19. I know Harish Nagpal. He is our common friend. I do not know
whether Harish Nagpal is money lender or finance broker. In my knowledge
he is builder. I am not aware whether my nephew Jigar Nandola used to lend
money on money lending and for interest through finance broker Harish
Nagpal. I will have to ask about it to my nephew. It is not true to say that I
was not knowing accused before executing Power of Attorney by the
complainant in my favour.
20. It is true to say that there is difference in ink of date and writing
on the cheque Exh.19. It is true to say that there is difference of ink of
signature and rest of the writing over cheque Exh.19. It is not true to say that
the signature over cheque Exh.19 is not signature of the accused. It is not
true to say that the cheque Exh.19 was never given to the complainant by the
accused.
On oral request of the advocate of the accused cross examination
is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 18.10.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 2 of 5 --
9 C.C.No.374/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
Date : 01.12.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Cross examination of CW-01- Piyush G. Gundana POA for Jigar
Nandola by advocate Mr. Sajnay Nerurkar for the accused :
21. I have not brought today Income Tax Returns as claimed on
last date. Accused gave me subject cheque in the month of December
2017 at his office at Parle. I do not remember exact date of giving
cheque Exh.19 by the accused to me. It is not true to say that I was
never knowing the accused personally. It is not true to say that Jigar
Nandola was also not knowing the accused personally. It is not true to
say that I never met the accused prior to filing complaint. I have no
idea whether original complainant Mr. Jigar Nandola used to advanced
loan through Mr. Harish Nagpal. It is not true to say that some blank
cheques were lying with the Harish Nagpal and complainant had
misused said cheques. It is not true to say that complainant has filed
present complaint misusing said blank cheque with the Harish Nagpal.
It is not true to say that there was never any direct transaction in
between complainant and accused. It is not true to say that accused
never received any amount or loan from complainant. Now I am shown
Bill of Exchange Exh.18. The Bill of Exchange contains signature of Mr.
Kinnar Nayak as acceptor of Bill of Exchange. I never made demand in
writing to the acceptor of Bill of Exchange at any point of time. It is not
true to say that there is no signature of accused Rita Nayak on the Bill
of Exchange. It is not true to say that Bill of Exchange Exh.18 was
never drawn by accused in my favour or in favour of Jigar Nandola. It
is not true to say that I do not possess any personal knowledge about
the case. It is not true to say that I am not competent to depose as
-- 3 of 5 --
10 C.C.No.374/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
Power of Attorney Holder of Jigar Nandola. It is not true to say that
there no legally enforceable liability against accused. It is not true to
say that Bill of Exchange Exh.18 is a forged document. It is not true to
say that the demand notice and re-joinder sent to the accused are false
document. It is not true to say that I am deposing false on oath. Now I
am shown Bill of Exchange Exh.18 and Cheque Exh.19. It is true to say
that the signature of drawer of cheque Exh.19 is different than
signature of drawer of Bill of Exchange Exh.18. It is not true to say that
therefore, both documents are forged.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 01.12.2025 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 5 --
11 C.C.No.374/SS/2018
CW-01 Exh.05
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 : Metropolitan Magistrate, 58th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 01.12.2025.
Typed on : 01.12.2025.
Evidence printed and Signed on : 01.12.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 02.12.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --