Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 9 C.C.No.837/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.10
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of PW-01- Prakashchand Hastimal Jain by
advocate Mr. Deepak Tambe for the accused :
18. It is not true to say that in delivery challan there was no
need printed as Jirawala Impex.
Ld. Advocate for accused asked the question in respect of
document Exh.19 Delivery Challan but the same is absent in
proceeding. Neither interpreter nor peon are able to give justification
for missing documents from the record of the court. Hence, cross
examination deferred till next date on consent of parties.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 06.12.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 28.04.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of PW-01- Prakashchand Hastimal Jain by
advocate Mr. Deepak
Tambe for the accused :
19. It is true to say that I have produced the photo copy of invoice and
delivery challan as the documents produced at Exh.19 and 20 in the
proceeding were missing. It is not true to say that the original documents
which I have earlier produced at Exh.19 and 20 in the proceeding were
false and fabricated. It is not true to say that therefore, after deferring the
cross examination I myself caused to miss said documents from the record.
It is not true to say that I am not keeping any record of invoices and
delivery challans. I can not answer without verifying my record that which
-- 1 of 4 --
10 C.C.No.837/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.10
was the earlier delivery challan prior to the missing delivery challan, its
numbers and name of the parties. So also I can not answer without
verifying my record that which was the subsequent delivery challan after
disputed delivery challan, name of the party and its number. I can not
answer without verifying record which was the earlier invoice to the
disputed invoice, name of the party and its number. So also I can not
answer without verifying record which was the later invoice to this
disputed invoice, name of the party and its number. It is true to say that I
was asked to produce relevant documents vide application under section
91 of Cr. P.C. I have replied said application. It is not true to say that
despite calling said documents I have not produced it deliberately. It is not
true to say that I have falsely stated in para 5 of my evidence affidavit that
I had supplied bulk quantity of cashew nuts @ Rs.798/- per kg. It is not
true to say that I have made false statement that I delivered cashew nuts
on cash and carry basis that is on immediate cash payment basis. It is not
true to say that I supplied inferior quality cashew nuts on three months
credit basis. It is true to say that I gave the accused a delivery challan in
the name and style Jirawala Impax by striking the name Premier
creations. Witness volunteers that said delivery challan was cancelled
because of quality of cashew nuts and new delivery challan was issued. I
do not remember that earlier delivery challan was given on 15.07.2017
and the delivery number was 108. It is true to say that I have not stated in
my complaint and evidence affidavit about cancellation of earlier delivery
challan and issuance of new delivery challan. It is not true to say that on
15.07.2017 I gave cashew nuts only one time and that too of inferior
quality. It is not true to say that the rate of cashew nuts supplied to the
accused was only Rs.760/- per kg. It is true to say that at that time I
obtained original Aadhar Card of the accused. It is not true to say that at
that time I also obtained blank security cheques from the accused. It is
-- 2 of 4 --
11 C.C.No.837/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.10
true to say that in para 7 of my complaint I have stated that I obtained
cheque as the gesture of security and his original Aadhar Card. Accused
has not made any cash payment to me after two days of delivery of
cashew nuts. Accused gave me subject two cheques approximately after 10
days. I do not remember exactly when the accused gave said cheques. I
have not returned any cheque to the accused. The contents of para No.10
of my complaint regarding handing over back the cheque are true and
correct. It is true to say that I have not stated in my evidence affidavit
that I returned back the cheque to the accused. It is not true to say that I
am deposing false that subject cheque was issued by the accused after 10
days of receiving cashew nuts by the accused. It is not true to say that I
had obtained both disputed cheques on the same day of delivering inferior
quality cashew nuts to the accused as a security. It is not true to say that
both cheques were not only blank but even not signed by the accused. It is
not true to say that I forged the signatures on both cheques. Both cheques
on the basis of which complaints are filed are valued of Rs.11,31,165/-. It
is not true to say that there was no legal liability against the accused to
pay Rs.11,31,165/-. It is not true to say that the value of inferior quality
cashew nuts supplied to the accused was only Rs.10,26,000/- by the rate
of Rs.760/- per kg. It is not true to say that the liability towards accused
was only Rs.10,77,000/- including 5% GST on the value of the cashew
nuts. Mr. Kansingh is not my partner. It is not true to say that myself and
Mr. Kansingh taken back some tines of cashew nuts from the accused for
selling it to other customers. It is not true to say that accused asked me to
take back the inferior quality cashew nuts but I never taken back the
same. Accused never told me that the cashew nuts supplied to him are
returned by the customers. It is not true to say that as I supplied inferior
quality cashew nuts and refrain from taking back said tins, accused has no
legal liability to pay me any amount. It is not true to say that I myself
-- 3 of 4 --
12 C.C.No.837/SS/2018
PW-01 Exh.10
filled in the contents of cheque, amount of the cheque without such
liability and got it dishonored. It is not true to say that entire contents of
cheque, signature of the accused are forged by me. It is not true to say
that I have misused the cheque obtained from the accused towards
security.
20. It is not true to say that after depositing the cheques and prior to
issuing notice to the accused, accused has filed complaint against me on
28.08.2017 in Naya Nagar Police station for the offence of cheating and
criminal breach of trust. It is not true to say that the notice issued to the
accused is wrong and with false contentions. It is not true to say that I
have supplied inferior quality goods to so many traders. It is not true to
say that after supplying inferior quality goods I pressurized them with the
aid of police. It is not true to say that I am doing illegal business without
licence. It is not true to say that I do not posses any document as to my
business. It is not true to say that I deposited the cheque without
informing the accused. It is not true to say that I have filed false complaint
against the accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 28.04.2025 Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 4 --