Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 6 C.C.No.781/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.16
8. 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 : 18.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Sajid Sharif Padiyar by advocate Mr. P. S.
Dubey for the accused :
9. I am knowing the accused since last 7 to 8 years. My in
laws are staying at Jogeshwari. I had visiting terms at Jogeshwari.
Accused was one of the group members and friends from Jogeshwari. It
is true to say that we become goods friends in passage of time. It is not
true to say that I had visited house of the accused. I never visited.
Accused is manufacturer of display tables and engaged in advertising
marketing board. I can tell for what purpose I had given money under
cheque to the accused. Accused had told me that he received contract
of Ureka Force Company for preparing 100 display tables. For that
purpose he advised me for investing money. In respect of said
investment MOU dated 19.02.2020 was prepared by the accused. Now
I am shown the document named ‘Mutual Understanding’ produced at
Exh.18. It is the same document. It is not true to say that I prepared
said MOU. It is true to say that the document is typed on a plain paper
and not affirmed before any authority. I had read said document prior
to executing signature. It is true to say that the date of the cheques are
not mentioned in the document. Even if the dates of the cheques are
not mentioned in document, the dates were already written by the
accused on the cheques and I was asked to deposit after 9 months.
23.12.2020 was written as the dates on the both cheques. It is not true
-- 1 of 5 --
7 C.C.No.781/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.16
to say that the cheques were undated. It is not true to say that entire
contents of cheques were filled by me. It is not true to say that there
was no legal liability on the part of accused on the date of delivery of
the cheques by the accused to me. I paid the amount to the accused on
17.02.2020 and 18.02.2020 by RTGS Mode and the document was
executed on 19.02.2020. It is true to say that in para 3 of my affidavit
in lieu of examination in chief I have specifically stated that MOU was
signed by the accused in my presence. It is not true to say that I filled
the dates on the cheques Exh.19 and 20. It is not true to say that I have
not informed the accused before presenting the cheques for realization.
Accused was never received my phone calls. It is not true to say that I
never made any phone call to the accused. It is not true to say that
therefore, I have not produced any call detail records of the phone
calls. I am deposing false that accused assured me to pay the profits
after 9 months. It is true to say that accused has not signed subject
cheques before me in my presence. Accused had brought both cheques
prepared and signed. I can identify the signature of the accused. The
signature executed by accused on MOU was same as of his signatures
on the cheques. It is not true to say that both signatures are not
identical.
10. I deposited the cheque on 24.12.2020. I received cheque
return memos on 28.12.2020. Now I am shown cheque return memos
Exh.21 and 22. It is true to say that both cheque return memo does not
bear seal of the bank and signature of issuing authority.
11. It is true to say that I do not know the date of sending
notice to the accused but it was sent in the January 2021. The notice
was received by the accused. I can not tell the date of receipt of notice
-- 2 of 5 --
8 C.C.No.781/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.16
by the accused but it was received by the accused in the month of
January 2021. The date is not mentioned by the accused as to the
receipt of the notice on acknowledgment Card. It is true to say that the
signature on acknowledgment card Exh.25 now shown to me differs
from the signature of the accused on the cheques.
The cross examination is deferred till next date as Court Recess
time.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 18.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 04.02.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Sajid Sharif Padiyar by advocate
Mr. P. S. Dubey for the accused :
12. It is true to say that there is no date of receiving notice on the
A.D.Card. I stating that accused received the notice sent by registered
post on 15.01.2021 on the basis of postal track report received from the
computer. It is true to say that I have not produced it on record but I
am ready to produce it on next date. It is not true to say that the notice
is not served and received by the accused. It is not true to say that as
accused has not received the notice, he has not given notice reply. I do
not remember the date of filing complaint but I may have file complaint
in January 2021. Now I am shown complaint Exh.1, para No.10 sub
clause (3). It is true to say that in said paragraph I have stated that the
-- 3 of 5 --
9 C.C.No.781/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.16
legal notice was received by the accused on 23.01.2021. It will be
correct to say that accused received the notice on 23.01.2021.
13. The demand notice was drafted by Adv. Shabbir Shora. It is
true to say that in my evidence affidavit I have not mentioned that the
demand notice dated 14.01.2021 was drafted by my advocate as per
my instructions. It is true to say that in my evidence affidavit I have
not mentioned categorically that the notice was sent to the accused on
my instructions. Now I am shown the demand notice dated 14.01.2021
sent by Adv. Shabbir A. Shora. It is true to say that there is no seal of
advocate Shora on said notice. It is not true to say that the signature on
the notice was not executed by my advocate in my presence. It is not
true to say that advocate Shora has not signed the notice in my
presence and I can not identify his signature. It is true to say that there
is no counter signature by me on notice. It is not true to say that I have
sent the false and fabricated notice Exh.23 to the accused.
14. I know Mr. Sayeed Padiyar my brother in law. Now he is no
more. It is true to say that he was cancer patient. It is not true to say
that I asked the accused to transfer Rs.1 lakh in the account of my
nephew on account of cancer patient. I am not aware that at my
instance and on my asking, accused had transferred Rs.1 lakh into the
account of my nephew named Usman Sayeed Padiyar. I am not having
any knowledge about this transaction. It is not true to say that the
transaction was very much within my knowledge and on my
instructions Rs.1 lakh was transferred to the account of my nephew
Usman. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I am not
aware about the transaction and amount is not transferred on my
instructions.
15. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that cheque was
-- 4 of 5 --
10 C.C.No.781/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.16
issued against legal liability by the accused. It is not true to say that
the cheque was given towards security. It is not true to say that I have
misused the cheque of the accused. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that accused has executed MOU dated 19.02.2020 and
issued subject cheque in discharge of liability. It is not true to say that
I am deposing false that I have issued legal notice to the accused and it
was received by him. I am not going to examine my nephew Usman
Padiyar.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 04.02.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
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 : 04.02.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 04.02.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 04.02.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 04.02.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --