Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 5 C.C.No.519/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
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 : 18.06.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Rameshchandra N. Jain by advocate
Mr.Chetan Pawar for the accused :
13. I do not know that re-joinder in reply to the notice reply
given by the accused is given or not by me. I do not know that accused
has replied to the demand notice given by me. It is not true to say that
my lawyer has sent notice to a wrong person or in the name of wrong
person. It is true to say that in my evidence affidavit I have not
mentioned that the contents of notice reply issued by the accused are
false or wrong.
14. The cheque Exh.16 is in favour of Lokesh Jwellers. It is not
true to say that the demand notice Exh.22 was issued in the personal
name of Mr. Rameshchandra N. Jain. Witness volunteers that I am
Proprietor of Lokesh Jwellers. It is true to say that in the notice,
complaint and evidence affidavit nowhere my legal status as a
Proprietor of Lokesh Jwellers is mentioned. It is true to say that I have
not produced any document in the proceeding to show that I am
Proprietor of Lokesh Jwellers. It is not true to say that the notice
Exh.28 is not as per mandate of section 138 (b) of the Act. It is not true
to say that the complaint lodged on the basis of notice Exh.28 is not
maintainable. It is not true to say that I do not have locus standi to
issue notice as well as file complaint as a proprietor of Lokesh Jwellers.
It is true to say that in the complaint or my evidence affidavit I have
-- 1 of 3 --
6 C.C.No.519/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
not mentioned the mode of order alleged to be given by the accused.
Accused had verbally ordered to deliver gold ornaments being about
253.252 grams. It is true to say that the date of issuing order by the
accused is not mentioned in complaint and evidence affidavit. It is true
to say that the value of gold is not mentioned in my complainant or
evidence affidavit. Witness volunteers that the challan number is
mentioned and in said challan the amount is mentioned. It is true to
say that the delivery challan Exh.15 is not in the name of M/s.
Waingankar Jwellers who had issued the cheque. It is true to say that
there is no signature on delivery challan Exh.15 either of Mr.
Waingankar or any representative of Waingankar Jwellers. Witness
pointed out a slip containing signature on a blank paper produced
along with the list of documents. Said chit is marked Exh.34 for the
purpose of identification subject to proving the same. It is true to say
that the date of signing said acknowledgment cum chit Exh.34 is not
mentioned on it. It is true to say that there is not stamp of Waingankar
Jwellers on receipt Exh.34. It is not true to say that the receipt or chit
Exh.34 does not disclose who has received the goods or who has given
it. It is true to say that the receipt does not disclose that accused has
received the gold of 253.252 grms.
Cross examination is deferred till next date as court recess time.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 18.06.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
7 C.C.No.519/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
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 : 18.06.2025
Transcribed and Typed on : 18.06.2025
Order printed and Signed on : 18.06.2025
Order Uploaded on : 18.06.2025
-- 3 of 3 --