Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 8 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
21. 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 : 05.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Durgesh Pramod Singh by advocate Mr.
Shyamdhar Singh for the accused :
22. I am working as a Insurance Agent. Besides said job I have no
other source of income. I am 12th Pass. I can read English language. I
know the contents of demand notice, complaint and evidence affidavit
filed by me. It is true to say that the documents annexed to my complaint
and affidavit are as per my instructions by my advocate. I know the
accused through his uncle T.N.Mishra with whom I had relations since
past 15-16 years. We both are having different native districts but we
belong to Uttarpradesh. We came in contact with each other in Mumbai. I
am staying in Mumbai since year 2008. It is true to say that my business is
restricted to Mumbai. I have no earlier business relations with accused
except the transaction in present case. The work was tendered by accused
to me at my native place when we were staying at our native place during
COVID-19 Pandemic. There was no written agreement or contract for the
work in between me and accused. The contract was verbal through uncle
of the accused. It is not true to say that there was no verbal agreement in
between me and accused even through his uncle. Witness states that
accused has made payment of Rs.8 lakhs for the said work to me by
account transfer. The project was of Indus Tower. Indus Tower has allotted
the work to COSMOS Infra Solution. COSMOS Infra Solution has again
allotted the work to accused who gave me said work. I have not seen any
document as to the contract in between Indus Tower, COSMOS Infra
Solution and accused that is Thirdeye Infra Service which is company of
-- 1 of 7 --
9 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
accused. It is true to say that I do not possess any document to show
that Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. gave me said work for particular
amount. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that accused gave me
said contract to construct a mobile tower at Mahu, Indore for Rs.15 lakhs
with profit of Rs.2 lakhs. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that
the consideration price of said contract was Rs.17 lakhs in total. It is not
true to say that accused has never asked me to perform said work either
orally or in writing against price of Rs.17 lakhs. It is not true to say that I
am deposing false that accused has verbally ordered me said work and
assured to pay said amount.
23. I know how many directors are there in Thirdeye Infra Services
Pvt. Ltd. The accused and his brother was the directors. The same was
narrated by the accused to me. I do not know name of brother of accused.
I do not remember whether I had sent or not sent statutory notice to
Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. Now I am shown office copy of statutory
notice Exh.17 sent by me to the accused. It is not sent in the name of
company of the accused that is Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. It is true
to say that I have mentioned address of the accused in notice dated
30.03.2022 r/o.B-36, Ansal Chamber II 6, Bhikanji Kama place, New
Delhi, South West Delhi-110066. It is not true to say that I have not sent
any notice to the accused on above mentioned address. I have produced
the postal receipts of Registered Post by which I sent notice on three
addresses of the accused. It is true to say that all three addresses are not
mentioned in notice Exh.17. Witness states that legal notice Exh.17
indicates only one address of the accused. It is true to say that I have not
narrated the details of transaction mentioned by me in my complaint and
evidence affidavit in the notice Exh.17.
24. The material required for the construction of Mobile Tower was
-- 2 of 7 --
10 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
purchased by me in the name of Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. I possess
the evidence with me to show payment made to the vendors in the name
of Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. by me. The payment was made by
account transfer mode and it reflects in the account statement. I can tell
by seeing my account statement how much payment on which date I made
to whom in the name of Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. Witness was
given bank account statement. The payment is made through Googlepay
that is UPI mode of payment. Witness shown entries in Account Statement
Exh.35 dated 22.10.2020, 27.10.2020, 27.10.2020, 29.10.2020,
29.10.2020, 29.10.2020, 31.10.2020, 06.11.2020, 06.11.2020,
06.11.2020, 07.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 25.11.2020, 04.12.2020,
04.12.2020, 12.12.2020, 03.02.2021, 12.02.2021, 01.02.2021,
01.02.2021, 03.09.2020, 03.09.2020 as payment made through
Googlepay, Net Banking that is IMPS. Witness also shown the entries as to
making cash payment by withdrawing money. The entry dated
02.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 02.11.2020, 03.11.2020, 03.11.2020,
09.11.2020, 11.11.2020, 12.11.2020, 13.11.2020, 13.11.2020,
13.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 19.11.2020,
19.11.2020, 21.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 02.12.2020,
09.12.2020, 16.12.2020, 18.12.2020, 24.12.2020, 26.12.2020,
30.12.2020, 08.01.2021, 09.01.2021, 18.01.2021, 19.01.2021,
20.01.2021, 21.01.2021, 27.01.2021 against cash withdrawal for
payment. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that above cash was
withdrawn by me and paid to the Vendor of Cement. It is true to say that I
have not stated in my notice, complaint and evidence affidavit as to
making payment also in cash for purchasing cement in the name of
company of the accused. The shop of Mr. Ramavadh is approximately at a
distance of 2 kilometer from the place of construction site. I was not
making payment in advance to Mr. Ramavadh before purchasing material.
-- 3 of 7 --
11 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
I used to pay after receiving material. Now I am shown Bill No.5 dated
08.12.2020 produced by me at Exh.33. I can not tell whether I made
payment in respect of Bill No.5 before raising the Bill or after receiving the
goods. It is not true to say that the Bill Exh.33 is false and fabricated. It is
not true to say that I myself written the contents of the Bill of Ambe
Traders. It is true to say that I have produced blank photo copy of Bill
No.5 alongwith original complaint at the time of presenting the complaint.
The blank photo copy of Bill No.5 in respect of Ambe Traders Proprietor
Ram Avadh Yadav is marked Exh.40.
25. Now I am shown Bill No.2 of Ambe Traders dated 08.01.2021
Exh.34. It is not true to say that the contents of the Bill Exh.34, its
description of material, amount and rate etc. is also written by me in my
hand writing or somebody acquainted with me. It is not true to say that I
have filed false and fabricated bills. It is true to say that the Bills are in
serial number in the book. I am ready to examine Proprietor of Ambe
Traders Shri.Ramavadh Yadav. It is true to say that Ramavadh Yadhav
gave me the blank bills under his signature. It is not true to say that I
fabricated the blank bills of Ambe Traders given by Shri. Ramavadh Yadav
to me and produced it on record. I do not know that Shri. Ramavadh
Yadav had not paid any GST on above bills to the Government. It is not
true to say that the contents of the bill Exh.33 and 34 do not belongs to
Ramavadh Yadav.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 05.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 7 --
12 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
Date : 22.07.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01 Durgesh Pramod Singh by advocate
Mr. Shyamdhar Singh for the accused :
26. It is true to say that the documents produced by me at Exh.27
to Exh.32 that is measurement sheets are computer generated documents.
The Quality Checking Engineer has given said documents to me. It is true
to say that the bank account statement Exh.35 produced by me is also a
computer generated statement. The Bill Exh.33 and Exh.34 both are
issued by Ambe Traders in the name of Third Eye Infrastructure Ltd. I can
not tell whether Proprietor of Ambe Traders Mr. Ramavadh has paid or not
paid the GST pertaining to both Bills. Tarkeshwar Mishra is staying at
Kalyan and I am staying at Vakola, Santacruz(E). It is true to say that he
is working with me in office. Mr. Tarkeshwar Mishra is uncle of accused. I
do not know that the relations in between Mr. Tarkeshwar Mishra and
accused are not good. It is not true to say that subject cheque is given by
Tarkeshwar Mishra to me. It is not true to say that I am deposing false
that Tarkeshwar Mishra has not given me cheque Exh.15. It is true to say
that the signature on cheque Exh.15 is not of accused Rahul Mishra. He
has given me the cheque and bank has clarified about his signature. It is
true to say that I have not made any payment to Tarkeshwar Mishra on
behalf of accused. Witness volunteers that I have paid Rs.50,000/-
towards material to Tarkeshwar Mishra on the say of accused. It is not
true to say that I am deposing false that I paid Rs.50,000/- on the account
of Tarkeshwar Mishra on the say of accused.
27. It is true to say that I have sent legal demand notice only in the
name of accused at three addresses. My advocate has not mentioned all
three addresses on which I send notice to the accused in demand notice
-- 5 of 7 --
13 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 Exh.13
dated 30.03.2022 produced at Exh.17. It is not true to say that the
address of accused at B-36 Ansal Chamber II 6, Bhikaji Kama Palace, New
Delhi, South West Delhi-110066 mentioned in demand notice and Bills are
not the address of the accused. Accused has informed me his address
orally on phone. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that accused
informed me above address on phone. It is not true to say that accused
has not received the demand notice on the address.
28. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that at the instance
of accused I had done the work of fabrication. It is not true to say that I
am deposing false that accused issued me subject cheque for the payment
of said work. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I
purchased material at the instance of accused from Jai Ambe Traders. It is
not true to say that I am deposing false that Mr. Ramavadh of Jai Ambe
Traders received amount from me and issued and supplied material for
fabrication work. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that
accused has made part payment towards the fabrication work. It is not
true to say that there is no transaction in between me and accused Rahul
Mishra. It is true to say that my transaction had taken place with
M/s.Thirdeye Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. as accused has issued the cheque
from his personal saving account, I have not made Thirdeye Infra Services
Pvt. Ltd. as party to the proceeding.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination. R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 22.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 6 of 7 --
14 C.C.No.362/SC/2022
CW-01 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 : 22.07.2025.
Typed on : 22.07.2025.
Evidence printed and Signed on : 22.07.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 22.07.2025.
-- 7 of 7 --