Interim Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: Exh.14
C.C.No.601/SS/2021
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 : 21.06.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of PW01 by advocate J.S.Sabwani for the
accused :
17. I do not remember whether I have not mentioned when I
have given loan to the accused in my notice, complaint and affidavit. I
know Santosh Hinduja since 20 years. Santosh Hinduja works individual.
He is son of my brother. It is true to say that he is estate and finance
broker. It is true to say that he is also finance broker of accused Deepak
Raheja. I do not know what commission Santosh used to take from
accused. I do not know how much loan I have given to the accused and
therefore, the same is not mentioned in my notice, complaint and
affidavit. Everything is done by my advocate. Before this transaction I have
given loan to five to six persons. It is true to say that I was giving loan to
them through Santosh Hinduja. It is true to say that Santosh Hinduja is
only knowing the transaction with the Deepak Raheja. I do not use to
execute agreement or document while giving loan. The borrower used to
execute Bill of Exchange. The Bill of Exchange was not mentioning the
rate of interest but borrower used to give interest at the rate of 18%. that
was the oral assurance to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Therefore, there was no any separate document to show the agreed rate of
interest. It is true to say that I used to take the cheques in security of
transaction while giving loan. It is true to say that I have not filed Bill of
-- 1 of 2 --
Exh.14
C.C.No.601/SS/2021
Exchange on record. The witness taken up the original copy of Bill of
Exchange from his bag and shown to the court. The Ld. Advocate for the
accused objected for recording said answer of the complainant. The
objection is in respect of showing and producing the Bill of Exchange by
the complainant at the stage of crossexamination and that to when the
question is put in respect of the said document. No doubt the complainant
has not filed Bill of Exchange in the proceeding but evidence can not be
shut up. He has shown the Bill of Exchange on the question of the accused
in crossexamination. Hence, objection rejected with permission to put
questions in respect of said Bill of Exchange by the accused. The Bill of
Exchange produced by the complainant is marked Exh.24.
Cross examination deferred till next date vide application
Exh.25 as the accused intend to challenge of order rejecting objection.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 21.06.2023 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 2 of 2 --