Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 12 C.C.No.94/SC/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
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 : 06.11.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Vikramsingh Parmeshwarsingh Khandka
by advocate Mr. Milind Gaware for the accused :
14. Complainant company is ruining its business from Mumbai.
Its registered office is at Kolkatta. Office at Mumbai is the Head Office
from where the complainant is trading. I can tell who are the directors
of complainant company. Aditya Saxeria, Savita Saxeria, Prakashchand
Saxreia are the directors of the complainant company. P.C. Saxeria is
Chairman and other two are directors. We have godown at Bhiwandi
from where we are sending the goods. I can not tell whether any Board
Meeting was conducted in the year 2021 in respect of accused
Dharmesh by the Board of Directors. It is true to say that I have not
seen any document pertaining to Board Meeting related to accused. It
is true to say that even after year 2021 no Board Meeting of directors
was conducted in respect of accused Dharmesh. It is true to say that I
have not seen any minute book as to the meeting of Board of Directors
in the year 2020 or in the year 2021 pertaining to the meeting
conducted in relation to accused Dharmesh Sanghavi. The Minute Book
of Meetings of Complainant company used to be kept at Bombay office.
Witness states that I do not exactly but it may be stored in computer. I
have not inquired about such Minute Book of Meeting of Mumbai
office. It is true to say that I was not given the copy of Minute Book of
Company till date by any employee or person who is looking after said
-- 1 of 5 --
13 C.C.No.94/SC/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
Minute Book. I know who is Mrs. Sonal Halde. She is Senior
Accountant of complainant company. I do not know that complainant
has not conducted any Meeting of Board of Directors authorizing Mrs.
Sonal Halde to file complaint on behalf of company against accused. I
have not inquired with her whether she was given such authority by the
complainant company. The meeting of Board of Directors of company
are usually held at Mumbai. I can not tell that record of such meeting
used to be preserved at Mumbai office.
15. I am working as a Admin Manager in complainant
company since year 2016. Complainant company runs business of
trading fabric at all India level.
16. Now I am shown document of Tax Invoice Exh.15. It is true
to say that I am not the author of Tax Invoice. It is true to say that post
dated cheque of 120 days credit period used to be obtained at the time
of or preparing Tax Invoice. It is true to say that further process of
sending goods commences after obtaining post dated cheque.
Complainant company is maintaining book of purchase orders.
Complainant company also maintains delivery challans. I have not
personally seen purchase orders or delivery challans of the goods
pertaining to the accused in the office. It is true to say that invoice
Exh.15 do not bears signature of accused. Witness volunteers that
receiver’s signature appears on delivery challans. It is true to say that I
have not seen personally any delivery challan with signature of accused
in office.
17. Now I am shown Lorry Receipt Exh.19. It is true to say that
Invoice number is not mentioned on said Money Receipt/Lorry Receipt.
It is true to say that the Invoice number mentioned on Lorry Receipt
-- 2 of 5 --
14 C.C.No.94/SC/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
Exh.19 is different than the Invoice number of Invoice Exh.15. It is true
to say that Lorry Receipt nowhere discloses stamp or seal of HP
Clothing or Akshad Fashions. It is true to say that I can not tell whose
signature is on Exh.19 Lorry Receipt as a receiver. It is true to say that I
do not possess any document with me to show that accused Dharmesh
Sanghavi is Proprietor or owner of M/s. H.P.Clothings. It is true to say
that right now I do not possess any document to show that address at
office number 76/86, Laxmi Bhuvan, 2nd Floor, Office No.36, Old
Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi belongs to the accused. It may be with the
office. I have personally visited above address and office of the accused.
It is true to say that we have not sent demand notice on above address
of the accused. I can not assign any reason as to why the invoice was
not raised in the name of M/s. Akshad Fashion when we received the
post dated cheques drawn on account of M/s. Akshad Fashions. It is
true to say that I have not personally handled the alleged transaction in
respect of accused. It is true to say that I filed case on documents
supplied by the complainant company to me. The instructions of
demand notice sent to the accused was given by the Director of the
complainant company Mr. Aditya Saxeria to the advocate. He himself
told me about the same. I do not know the date of preparing demand
notice. It is true to say that the postal receipts Exh.25 and 26 produced
by me indicates date of posting article on 17.07.2021. I can not tell
whether any demand notice was prepared or not on 17.07.2021 for
sending the same to the accused. Now I am shown copy of demand
notice Exh.24. It bears date 19.07.2021. I can not tell that no demand
notice was prepared on 17.07.2021. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false that accused was sent notice on 17.07.2021. It is not
true to say that no demand notice was sent to the accused on
-- 3 of 5 --
15 C.C.No.94/SC/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
17.07.2021. Now I am shown Postal Track Consignment Report at
Exh.30.
18. It is not true to say that accused Dharmesh Sanghavi is
working as an agent in textile trading. It is not true to say that
Dharmesh Sanghavi is not proprietor of M/s. H.P.Clothings. It is true to
say that Dharmesh Sanghavi introduced M/s. H.P.Clothings with
complainant company. It is true to say that Mr. Paresh Shah is owner of
M/s. H.P.Clothings. It is true to say that Mr. Dharmesh Sanghavi is
Proprietor and owner of M/s. Akshad Fashion. It is not true to say that
Dharmesh Sanghavi had issued three Post dated cheques for purchasing
goods for M/s. Akshad Fashion to the complainant company. I do not
know that accused Dharmesh Sanghavi has address at Ahamadabad. It
is not true to say that Dharmesh Sanghavi had issued purchase order
from Ahamadabad for M/s. Akshad Fashion. It is true to say that no
Tax Invoice is raised by the complainant company in the name of M/s.
Akshad Fashions. It is true to say that no business deal taken place in
between complainant company and M/s. Akshad Fashions. It is true to
say that Akshad Fashion do not owe any amount to complainant
company. It is true to say that accused introduced H.P.Clothings to the
complainant. Witness volunteers in answer to question that he
represented himself as owner of H.P.Clothings. It is not true to say that
Mr. Paresh Shah discussed with complainant company relating to the
business with H.P.Clothings. It is true to say that company does not
possess any covering letter or document giving alongwith cheques of
Akshad Fashions. The cheques were given directly. It is not true to say
that accused Dharmesh Sanghavi has no concerned with H.P. Clothings
nor he is Proprietor of H. P. Clothings. It is not true to say that we have
misused cheques of Akshad Fashions. It is not true to say that I am
-- 4 of 5 --
16 C.C.No.94/SC/2021
CW-1 Exh.13
deposing false that accused received the demand notice. It is not true to
say that the address of office number 76/86, Laxmi Bhuvan, 2nd Floor,
Office No.36, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi was never of the accused
Dharmesh Shanghavi.
19. It is true to say that all the cheques Exh.16,17 and 18 bears
different ink of pen in respect of signature of the accused and rest of
the contents. Accused has given blank cheques and we have filled in the
details. It is not true to say that I do not possess any legal authority to
depose and represent complainant. It is not true to say that I have
misused the blank cheques.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 06.11.2025 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 : 06.11.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 06.11.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 06.11.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 07.11.2025.
-- 5 of 5 --