Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 12 C.C.No.1146/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.06
13. 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 : 10.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Mr. Arvindbhai Mangukiya by advocate
Mr. Sidharth Shankar Sharma for the accused:
14. Ridhi Diamonds came in existence in the year 1999-2000.
Since beginning Ridhi Diamonds is Partnership Firm. There are total
eight partners of M/s. Ridhi Diamonds. I can tell their names.
Bhimjibhai Poonabhai Mangukiya, Babubhai Poonabhai Mangukiya,
Rajubhai Devrajbhai Mangukiya, Ashokbhai Bhimjibhai Mangukiya,
Pareshbhai Babubhai Mangukiya, Mukeshbhai Devrajbhai Mangukiya,
Kanjibhai Gagajibhai Mangukiya, Arvindbhai Gagajibhai Mangukiya
are the partners of the M/s. Ridhi Diamonds. The Partnership Firm is
registered firm. It being our joint family partnership firm, no Resolution
is required. There is nobody by named Sohil Jain related to Partnership
Firm. I do not know who is Mr. Sohil Jain. Mr. Kirtikumar Shah, Mr.
Jignesh Shah, Mr. Sandip K. Shah are not the partners nor I am
knowing them. I have first time heard names of above persons. I have
Partnership Deed. I will produce it on next date. All the decisions are
taken by Partners jointly and orally. It is true to say that I have not
produced any authority letter to file complaint on behalf of other
partners of the firm. It is true to say that I have not filed any document
to show that I am empowered to file complaint and depose on behalf of
complainant. Witness states that I am not aware and my advocate has
not advised. If my advocate advises I will file it. Accused No.2, 3 and 4
-- 1 of 5 --
13 C.C.No.1146/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.06
only approached to us. Rest of the accused were in the company. I have
not stated falsely in my complaint para No.2 that all 9 accused
approached to complainant. I had instructed my advocate to make such
averment. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that only four
accused approached. Witness states that I have filed case against Tara
Jwells Ltd. In connection to Tara Jwells I have stated the name of all
directors of accused No.1 company. It is true to say that I have
mentioned the names of all nine accused on the basis of record of ROC.
Cross examination is deferred till next date as Court Recess
time.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 10.07.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 08.09.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Mr. Arvindbhai Mangukiya by
advocate Mr. Sidharth Shankar Sharma for the accused:
15. Transaction commenced in the year 2013 and was continued
till year 2017-2018. There was no purchase order in writing given by the
accused. All purchase was made on oral demand. I have not mentioned in
my complaint or evidence affidavit that accused made oral demand and
purchased material. I have not made complaint to Police Station for
threatening by accused to me as averred in para 4 of my complaint. Right
now I can not tell exact figure of payment made by the accused during
year 2013 to 2018. I do not know how much cheques were given after
alleged threatening by the accused. I do not know when accused gave
-- 2 of 5 --
14 C.C.No.1146/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.06
cheques. Accused gave cheques in the month of January or February of
year 2018. It is not true to say that I do not know anything about the
transaction. The Diamonds mentioned in description of goods in Tax
Invoice dated 27.06.2016 produced at Exh.61 pertains to S/cut and
polished diamonds. Every diamond has different rates. Said Invoice is
signed by Pareshbhai Mangukia partner of Ridhi Diamonds. The signature
on Tara Jewels Ltd. is signature of accused No.3 Rajiv Vasant Sheth.
Signature on confirmation letter dated 27.09.2017 Exh.59 belongs to
accused No.3 Rajiv Vasant Sheth. It is true to say that the signature on
Invoice Exh.61 for Tara Jewels is different than signature on confirmation
letter Exh.59. It is not true to say that the Invoices produced by me for
Ridhi Diamonds are false and bogus documents. I can not tell through
whom the diamonds mentioned in Exh.61 Tax Invoice was supplied to the
accused. The Diamonds mentioned in Exh.63 dated 01.07.2016 were
taken by Rahul Gupta and Vimalbhai representing the accused. It is not
true to say that I am not knowing anything about Tax Invoice Exh.63. It is
not true to say that I do not know anything about the goods mentioned in
any of the Tax Invoices produced by me as I have not raised or prepared
said Tax Invoices. It is not true to say that all the Tax Invoices are false
and fabricated. It is not true to say that none of the Tax Invoices bears
signature of Tara Jewels. It is not true to say that I do not know when
the Diamonds mentioned in various Tax Invoices produced by me was sold
and supplied and to whom the same were supplied. Myself had sold and
supplied all Diamonds to accused No.3 Rajiv Vasant Sheth who taken
away the material. I can produce summary of account statement as to
outstanding amount towards accused and the amount actually paid by the
accused. I have brought it with me today. I will produce the statement for
the period commencing from 2013 to 2019. Whatever invoices with me
are produced by me in proceeding. I can not tell how many invoices were
-- 3 of 5 --
15 C.C.No.1146/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.06
issued on particular date. It is not true to say that only one sell
transaction taken place with me and as such I have not signed other
invoices.
16. Now I am shown cheque Exh.145. It is true to say that
there is difference of ink of signature and ink of rest of the contents of
the cheque. Witness volunteers that in all cheques there is difference of
ink of signature and ink of rest of the contents of the cheques. It is not
true to say that all the cheques were given blank with signature as a
security and not towards any liability. It is not true to say that I have
deposited four cheques filling the contents of blank cheques. It is not
true to say that I have received all payment from the accused. It is not
true to say that as I have received payment, I have not produced the
bank account statement or personal account statement. It is not true to
say that I do not possess legal authority to file present complaint and
depose in the case.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 08.09.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 5 --
16 C.C.No.1146/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.06
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 : 08.09.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 08.09.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 08.09.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 08.09.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --