Interim Order 4

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 6 C.C.No.1210/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
16. 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 : 02.04.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Rajendra Khatanhar by advocate Mr. Rajesh
Jain for the accused :
17. I am studied upto 10th Standard. I was dealer of petroleum
products. In the mean while I was dealing in property business but it was
closed due to loss. At present I am doing nothing. It is true to say that except
these two businesses I was not doing any other business. I was running both
business as a sole proprietor. I know the accused No.2 Birju Murjani since last
45 years. It is true to say that I have not done any business with the accused
No.1 and 2. It is true to say that I have not produced any document in respect
of legal entity of accused No.1 or business of accused No.2. It is true to say
that I have not produced any document to show relationship in between
accused No.1 and accused No.2. It is not true to say that I am not aware
whether accused No.1 firm is registered firm or not. The accused No.1 firm is
registered partnership firm. It is true to say that I do not possess any
document to show that the accused No.1 firm is registered partnership firm.
It is not true to say that I am saying that partnership firm is registered firm as
per my assumption. There are only two partners of the firm at present. I was
knowing since beginning that there were two partners of the partnership firm
accused No.1. I can tell the name of another partner of accused No.1. At
present I do not recollect his name but I know him. I again say that his name
Chandan Prem Rizwani. I have not added him as co-accused in present case
because whole and sole is Mr. Birju Murjani accused No.2. It is not true to say
that I have purposely stated that accused No.2 was looking entire business. It
-- 1 of 5 --
7 C.C.No.1210/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
is not true to say that I have not impleaded another partner Chandan Rizwani
to favour him. It is not true to say that in present case the accused No.2 has
no role but I have falsely implicated him. It is not true to say that I have
purposely filed false complaint against accused No.2.
18. It is true to say that as per narration of my complaint I have
advanced a friendly loan to the accused without interest. It is true to say that
the firm of accused used to pay some amount of money on every month to
me. Witness volunteers that said amount was amount of interest. It is not true
to say that whatever amount given to me was for the repayment of principle
loan amount. It is not true to say that there is no agreed transaction for
giving interest in between me and accused. Witness volunteers that accused
had agreed to pay interest in writing. It is true to say that I have not
produced any such document on record. It is not true to say that I can not
assign any reason for not producing the same. It might be my mistake of not
producing it. I can produce it on record. I was getting approximately
Rs.22,000/- per month from the firm of accused every month. I got said
amount approximately for one year only. I can not tell exact amount received
by me.
19. It is true to say that nothing is mentioned about payment of
interest in Bill of Exchange Exh.31 now shown to me. It is true to say that I
have not made my signature on Bill of Exchange Exh.31 for acceptance. It
is true to say that the Bill of Exchange Exh.31 is not prepared in my presence.
It is true to say that I can not tell who has signed the document. It is not true
to say that I have produced false and forged Bill of Exchange Exh.31. It is not
true to say that accused have not signed the Bill of Exchange. It is not true to
say that cheque Exh.24 to 30 are not signed in my presence. It is true to say
that I have not issued any notice to the accused after 01.06.2018. It is not
true to say that I have filed false and bogus notice dated 31.05.2018
produced at Exh.33. It is not true to say that notice Exh.33 was not prepared
as per my instructions. It is not true to say that I have not sent any demand
-- 2 of 5 --
8 C.C.No.1210/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
notice under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act, to the accused. It
is not true to say that accused is not liable to pay the cheque amount.
20. I know Mr. Sonawane who was working with the accused
earlier. I will try to summon him as a witness. It is true to say that he can
depose the true facts. It is not true to say that I have stolen the cheque from
the accused in connivance with Mr. Sonawane. I do not know whether
Sonawane was removed from service on knowing said fact by the accused. It
is not true to say that the cheque is not signed by the accused. It is not true to
say that accused has not received any notice. It is not true to say that I have
filed false case against the accused. It is not true to say that accused is not
liable to pay any amount to me. It is not true to say that the contents of
complaint and affidavit in lieu of examination in chief are false. It is not true
to say that I have deliberately not mentioned the money received by me in
notice, complaint and affidavit of evidence.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross examination is
deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 02.04.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 06.02.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Rajendra Khatanhar by advocate
Mr. Rajesh Jain for the accused No.1 and 2 :
21. I have shown the payments received in my Ledger Account.
It is true to say that I have not produced the Ledger Statement.
22. I have not given money to any other person than the
-- 3 of 5 --
9 C.C.No.1210/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
accused as a financial help. I am not possessing Money Lending
Licence. I am not a professional money lender. I do not know that
giving money on interest without licence is illegal and banned by law. It
is true to say that I have not executed any Agreement at the time of
giving or taking money. It is true to say that I have not given anything
in writing to the accused for the money received by me from him
specifying the money against interest or money against principle time
to time.
23. It is true to say that I had not gone to the home of the
accused personally before giving loan to him. It is true to say that even
after giving alleged loan, I never visited the house of accused. I had
given all the papers to my advocate prior to issuing notice to the
accused. It is not true to say that I had not given the cheque return
memo of the bank to my advocate. It is not true to say that I have not
read contents of notice. It is not true to say that my advocate has issued
notice without my instructions. It is not true to say that notice Exh.33
dated 31.05.2018 was never sent by me or my advocate to the accused.
It is not true to say that I have produced false statutory demand notice
dated 31.05.2018. It is not true to say that I had not made any
correspondence with the accused prior to receiving alleged cheques. I
had sent E-mail. It is true to say that I have not produced said E-mail
on record. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I had sent
E-mail to the accused. It is not true to say that I have filed false notice,
complaint and evidence affidavit. It is not true to say that I have filed
false documents in the complaint. It is not true to say that accused has
never issued the cheques under his signature to me. It is not true to say
that I have written the contents of the cheques falsely. It is true to say
that accused personally has not filled the contents of the cheque.
-- 4 of 5 --
10 C.C.No.1210/SS/2018
CW-1 Exh.5
Witness states that the contents were written by his staff member. It is
not true to say that I have produced false cheque return memos. It is
not true to say that I have filed false and bogus complainant against the
accused. It is not true to say that accused has no liability to pay any
amount. It is not true to say that I filed false complaint to harass the
accused. It is not true to say that I have mentioned false amount on the
cheques and no such liability occurs towards the accused.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Rajendra Khatanhar by advocate
Mr. S.R.Sharma for the accused No.3 :
24. It is true to say that disputed cheques are not issued by
accused No.3. It is true to say that accused No.3 has not signed the
cheques placed at Exh.24 to 30. It is true to say that the Bill of
Exchange Exh.31 is also not executed by accused No.3. It is true to say
that the out of court settlement is taken place in between accused No.3
and me. It is true to say that I have received Rs.4 lakhs from accused
No.3. It is not true to say that accused No.3 is not liable to pay me the
cheque amount. It is true to say that I do not want to proceed with the
case against accused No.3 only. It is not true to say that accused No.3 is
not Partner of accused No.1 M/s. Navdurga Transport.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 06.02.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 5 of 5 --