Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 7 C.C.No.1108/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
11. 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 : 21.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Ms.Darshana Piyush Gundana by
advocate Ms. Neeta for the accused :
12. Accused and his advocate absent. Application for
adjournment rejected. Junior Advocate is not ready to cross examine
the complainant. Hence, no cross.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination. R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 21.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 24.03.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Cross examination of CW-01- Ms.Darshana Piyush Gundana by
advocate Mr. Mangesh Patel for the accused after recalling witness:
13. I am studied upto 10th Std. I had Dental Laboratory. Right
now I am retired since year 2016-2017. I do not remember what was
my annual income in the year 2013. I was filing Income Tax Returns. I
will produce it. My husband is also now retired. We both were in the
-- 1 of 5 --
8 C.C.No.1108/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
business of Dental Laboratory. I will also produce Income Tax Returns
of my husband. I had not meet accused No.2 Manoj Mittal and his wife
Nita Mittal before year 2013. Before year 2013 we were not doing
business of Money Lending. I can tell why accused No.2 approached me
for financial assistance when I was not doing Money Lending Business.
Accused contacted my husband and after discussion we made finance.
My husband was also not doing Money Lending Business. I do not
know why accused No.2 approached to my husband for financial
assistance when he was not doing money lending business. It is true to
say that accused No.3 never approached to me to request for finance.
14. It is true to say that I was not aware who was the directors
of accused No.1 company in the year 2013. I know what was the
business of accused No.1 in the year 2013. The accused No.1 company
was dealing with Paint Manufacturing Business. It is true to say that in
the year 2013 I have not checked or verified financial status of the
accused No.1 company. I do not remember whether I had obtained or
not any Board Resolution from the accused No.2 and 3 empowering
them to obtain loan for accused No.1 company. I do not remember
whether I have never obtained any document from the accused No.2
and 3 authorizing them to obtain loan for accused No.1 company. It is
true to say that I have stated in my complaint that accused were in
need of finance for working capital of their business. I do not know
what is mean by working capital. It may be money required for their
business. It is true to say that I have not produced any document to
show that I had given Rs.5 lakhs to accused No.1. I do not remember
that I do not have any document to show that accused No.3 has given
consent to obtain loan for accused No.1. I do not remember that
accused No.2 has not signed any document before me or in my
-- 2 of 5 --
9 C.C.No.1108/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
presence. Witness took time to answer the question.
15. I do not charge any amount of interest on normal course of
lending money. Accused has given interest in present transaction but I
do not remember at what rate. I do not remember whether accused
No.1 had made any payment after 2013 to me or not. Accused No.1
was paying interest but I will have to check record. It is true to say that
I am not aware how much amount is due towards accused No.1. It is
not true to say that accused No.2 has never handed over cheques of
accused No.1 to me personally. I do not remember exactly when
accused No.2 gave me said cheques but it might be in the month of
March or April 2018. Witness taken time for answering the question. I
do not remember how many cheques were handed over to me. The
cheques were with pre-written amount. I do not know what was the
amount mentioned on the cheques. I do not remember what was the
dates mentioned on the cheques. During 2013 to 2018 accused were
paying interest and as such there was no any other transaction during
said period. It is not true to say that the cheques given by the accused
were only towards final repayment of loan. It is true to say that I was
not aware what was the amount due for interest during year 2013 to
2018.
16. Now I am shown cheques Exh.12 and 13 and signatures
thereon. Both signatures on both cheques are dicto similar. I do not
know why both signatures on Exh.12 and 13 are like dicto signatures
with each other. I do not know that both signatures are done by using
mechanical process just like affixing a stamp of signature. It is true to
say that both signatures on Exh.12 and 13 were not endorsed or
executed before me. It is true to say that the ink used for making
-- 3 of 5 --
10 C.C.No.1108/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
signatures on both cheques is different than the ink of contents of the
cheques. It is true to say that the ink of dates of the cheques Exh.12
and 13 is also different with each other.
17. Now I am shown Bill of Exchange Exh.11. I do not know
who prepared the document. The same is done by accused himself. It is
true to say that Bill of Exchange Exh.11 does not contain signature of
accused No.3. Accused No.2 is the drawer of Bill of Exchange and he is
only acceptor of the Bill of Exchange. I again say I am not aware who is
the drawer of Bill of Exchange and acceptor of Bill of Exchange. It is
true to say that I have not presented Bill of Exchange Exh.11 for
payment to accused No.1. I do not know that as I never presented the
Bill of Exchange Exh.11 to accused No.1, there was no question of its
dishonor. It is not true to say that I do not know what was the purpose
of obtaining Bill of Exchange. It was like a Promissory Note. It is true
to say that I am not aware what to do after obtaining the Bill of
Exchange. It is true to say that I have not obtained any document of
identification of accused No.2 and 3. It is true to say that I am not
aware about their residential addresses. I have deposited both cheques
for realization on same date. In my opinion accused are staying at
Narul and not at Vashi. I do not know on which addresses the demand
notice was sent to the accused. I had provided addresses to my
advocate. I think on both address that is residential and office address,
the notice was sent to the accused. It is true to say that neither I visited
the house of accused nor they came to my house. It is not true to say
that the accused never received the notice sent by me. I have stated in
complaint that accused refused to accept the notices and the same were
returned with envelops as they must have refused to accept the notice.
My advocate has shown me the envelops of notices which returned to
-- 4 of 5 --
11 C.C.No.1108/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
my advocate. Now I am shown envelops Exh.22 to 26. Except envelop
Exh.23, all envelops shows returned back to addressee for remark
‘Refused’. I have not filed any other case against accused except present
complaint under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 24.03.2025 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 : 24.03.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 24.03.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 24.03.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 24.03.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --