Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 28 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
31. 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 : 06.05.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Sumeet Singh by advocate Mr.Vivek Joshi
for the accused :
32. It is true to say that I do not possess personal knowledge as
to the transaction and case. I am deposing on the basis of documents
and records and in the capacity of representative of complainant
company. It is not true to say that I am deposing false in my
examination in chief that I have personal knowledge of the case and
transaction. I have read all the documents annexed with the complaint
Exh.01 formally marked as Exh.A to Exh.Z in document list Exh.3. It is
true to say that I am not the author of any of the documents produced
by me alongwith my evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief at
list Exh.13 except the document of certificate under section 65(b)
marked Exh.39.
33. Now I am referred to Processing Agreement Exh.15. It is
not true to say that except the signature on page No.17 and page No.19
of said Agreement, accused has not signed any other pages of said
Agreement. It is not true to say that I have forged the signatures of the
accused on remaining pages of the Agreement. I do not know who was
authorised to sign the Processing Agreement on 10.06.2019. I will
have to verify my record. I do not know that Mr. Pradeep Ahuja was
authorized to sign the Processing Agreement on 10.06.2019. It is true
-- 1 of 7 --
29 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
to say that Mr. Pradeep Ahuja was Head of Copra Buying Department
of Complainant Company. It is true to say that the name of Pradeep
Ahuja Head Copra Buying was typed on Processing Agreement page
No.17 and the same is erased. I do not know the name of person who
has signed the page No.4 to 16 in the capacity of authorized signatory
for Marico Ltd. It is not true to say that Complainant company has
changed the pages of Processing Agreement from page No.4 to 16. I
will have to verify whether only Page No.17 and page No.19 of the
Processing Agreement Exh.15 is signed by Mr. B. Hariharan. It is true to
say that on 10th of June 2019 I was not aware how Mr. B. Hariharan
was executing his signature.
34. I do not know the meaning of ‘vet’ to answer the question
whether I vetted the document of Processing Agreement. Witness was
narrated the meaning of word ‘vet’. I have vetted the document of
Processing Agreement, post signatures and execution. I am serving as a
Legal Manager in Complainant Company since three and half years. I
joined in the month of September, 2021. I know the meaning of word
‘SOP’. It is Standard Operating Procedure. In my knowledge there is no
any SOP to vet the Agreement by Legal Manager after its execution. It
is not true to say that complainant company or its responsible persons
had never intention to supply raw material valued more than Rs.50
lakhs to the accused for processing. It is true to say that complainant
company has obtained bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs from the accused.
I do not know how the company arrived at a figure of Rs.50 lakhs bank
guarantee to be obtained from the converter that is accused. It is true
to say that as per the terms of Processing Agreement, what ever raw
material or products available with the accused was to be returned on
termination of the Agreement. I do not know that complainant
-- 2 of 7 --
30 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
company has supplied raw material Coconut without husk for
34,15,510 kilo grams from 09.07.2019 to 13.11.2020. I will have to
verify the record. I have produced the documents to show exact
quantity of copra and raw material supplied to the accused. I am not
aware whether accused has used raw material for 32,32,970 kilo grams
out of 34,15,510 kilo grams. I will have to verify the documents.
There are number of documents produced alongwith list Exh.13 to
show the particular number of quantity of raw material supplied to the
accused. I do not know which computer software the complainant
company is using for running the business. I do not know by which
software the statastical data reflected in various sheets containing page
No.55 to 63 in the form of Account Statement is prepared. The photo
copy of the pages starting from page No.55 to 63 annexed alongwith
document Exh.3 at Sr. No.9 with original complaint is marked Article ‘A’
for the purpose of identification of the document. The advocate for
accused has no objection to mark exhibit to said document. Hence, the
document which is given Article ‘A’ is marked Exh.52 as referred in
cross examination. It is true to say that as per the entries reflected in
the document Exh.52 last purchase was dated 05.02.2021 for the order
dated 13.11.2020. It is true to say that the total number of nut
purchased for Merico is 34,15,510 kg. in total.
35. Now I am shown Exh.D that is Summary Particulars
produced alongwith complaint and list of document Exh.3 at Sr.No.9. It
is true to say that in said summary, it indicates that total nuts supplied
to the accused is 34,15,510 kg. It is true to say that in said document it
indicates that accused made production of material for 32,32,970 kg.
and supplied to the complainant. The document at page No.54
formally marked Exh.D at the time of filing complaint is marked Exh.53
-- 3 of 7 --
31 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
being referred in cross examination. It is not true to say that after
calculation, as per our record, only coconuts for 1,82,540 kg material
remains with the accused. It is true to say that the balance material for
1,82,540 kg material is also reflected in the document Exh.52 which is
statement. It is true to say that as on date only 1,82,540 kg coconut
without husk is pending with the accused. I can not tell whether the
value of material of 1,82,540 kg was worth Rs.63,49,346/-. I am not
the correct person to answer said question. All the arithmetical entries
are true and correct. I can not tell how the amount of Rs.63,49,346/-
mentioned in second last column of Exh.52 is calculated. It is not true
to say that the entries and calculations reflected in document of
statement Exh.52 produced by me are incorrect and false.
36. I do not know the yield percentage of our company. The
agreed yield percentage appears to be 28 to 31.50 as per the statement
Exh.52. I do not know that accused has supplied copra for 8,82,911 kg
to the complainant. I will have to check the record. It is true to say that
the summary Exh.53 shows that accused has supplied copra of
8,82,911 kg to the complainant. I will have to cross check whether our
company lifted the material of 8,82,911 kg from the accused by truck.
It is true to say that the photo copies produced at page No.64 and 65
alongwith document list Exh.3 indicates the truck numbers,
destinations in respect of sending material by the accused to the
complainant. I do not know the term Committed Outturn and Actual
Outturn of Copra. It is true to say that the Processing Agreement
Exh.15, Clause IX Quality, Term No.5 indicates the term, Committed
Outturn and Actual Outturn. I do not know the meaning of said term
Committed Outturn. I will have to verify whether I can produce any
document showing commitment of the accused to produce yield upto
-- 4 of 7 --
32 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
30 to 31%. I can not answer whether the calculations mentioned in
statement Exh.52 are based on committed outturn as per the Processing
Agreement. I can not tell on what basis the yield percentage is
indicated in statement Exh.15. It is true to say that as per summary
Exh.53, the yield percentage comes to 38.15% after calculating the nut
supplied and production done by the accused. I can not tell on what
basis the yield percentage of 38.15 is mentioned or suggested arrived at
when the statement Exh.52 indicates maximum yield percentage of
31.50 only. The account person would be the best person to answer. I
do not know how much insurance was drawn for the material supplied
to the accused. It is true to say that complainant company has encash
the bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs of the accused. I do not know
whether bank is informed or not about loss while encashing bank
guarantee. I do not know whether complainant company has informed
or not to the bank as to particular amount of loss after encashing bank
guarantee. Now I am shown photo copy of Bank Guarantee produced at
Exh.16. It is true to say that Clause No.6 of Bank Guarantee indicates
obligation to inform actual loss or damage while encashing the same. It
is not true to say that at the time of encashing bank guarantee dated
15.07.2019, complainant company was not sure and clear as to the
actual amount of loss suffered under the Agreement from the accused.
37. Now I am shown Letter dated 08.07.2021 issued to Bank
Manager Indian Overseas Bank produced at Exh.17. It is true to say
that the amount of loss suffered by the complainant is not mentioned in
said letter Exh.17. I can not assign any reason as to why the loss is not
quantified while issuing letter Exh.17 as I am not the author of the
letter.
-- 5 of 7 --
33 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
38. I do not know that the coconut without husk of 1,82,540
kg was supplied to two ladies Mrs. Baby and Mrs. Lalita by the
complainant. I do not know that accused has registered crime of
committing theft of material of 1,82,540 kg against said Mrs. Baby and
Mrs. Lalita at Koimutur. I am not aware whether our company has
received summons from Tamilnadu Police in connection to said FIR.
39. Now I am shown photo copy of letter dated 18.09.2021
issued by complainant to the accused produced by me alongwith
complaint Exh.1 formally marked Exh.S at the time of filing complaint.
Said letter is marked Exh.54 as referred to the witness in cross
examination. It is true to say that the recitals of the letter states that
accused has informed the complainant about filing complaint against
Mrs. Baby and Mrs. Lalita in the District Crime Branch Tirupur for
recovering the stocks of the materials supplied by the complainant. I do
not know who attended the concerned police station at the end of
complainant company. I am not aware that accused is not able to read,
write or understand English.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 06.05.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 6 of 7 --
34 C.C.No.65/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.12
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 : 06.05.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 06.05.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 06.05.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 06.05.2025.
-- 7 of 7 --