Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: 13 C.C.No.1065/SS/2019
CW-01 Exh.10
14. 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 : 26.03.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01 Mr. Manan Mahesh Haria by advocate Mr. M. P.
Maurya for accused :
15. M/s. Siddhi Art Jwellery is a Partnership Firm consisting two
partners. I am Manager of the firm. I am not partner. My wife Siddhi Manan
Haria and Ankur Hemant Chawla are the partners of the complainant firm.
The complainant is registered Partnership Firm. Both partners of complainant
firm has given authority to present complaint on behalf of complainant firm
to me. It is not true to say that both partners of the complainant firm has not
signed the authority letter nor given me authority. I was present at the time
when the authority letter was issued by the partners. It is true to say that I
have not produced the Partnership Deed of the complainant firm in the
proceeding. It is true to say that the Partnership Firm’s Registeration number
is not mentioned in the authority letter produced by me. It is true to say that
there is no seal affixed in respect of the Partnershi Firm on the letter of
authority. I can produce the copy of Partnership Deed.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross examination
is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 26.03.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 1 of 4 --
14 C.C.No.1065/SS/2019
CW-01 Exh.10
Date : 12.01.2026
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01 Mr. Manan Mahesh Haria by advocate
Mr. M. P. Maurya for accused :
16. It is true to say that my Partnership Firm is not registered
Partnership Firm as earlier stated by me. It is not true to say that
signatures of the partners recorded by Partnership Deed are not verified or
recorded with any Government Authority. It is recorded with GST
Department as well as Bank.
17. It is true to say that I have not specifically stated in my Evidence
Affidavit on which date or month accused No.2 had approached to us but
he had been to our firm on the same day of Bills. There was no purchase
order in writing and as such I have not produced purchase order. The
goods sold to the accused were delivered to him. Accused has received the
articles under Invoice No.391 dated 05.03.2019 and Invoice No.139 dated
03.10.2019. I have produced receipt/estimate copy of pertaining to
articles mentioned in Invoice dated 05.03.2019 and 03.10.2019 wherein
accused has signed for receiving the articles. It is true to say that Tax
Invoices Exh.13 and 14 do not show receiving articles by the accused. The
staff member of the accused gave me cheque pertaining to Invoices Exh.13
and 14 at my shop. The cheque was duly filled in with signature of the
accused. It is true to say that I do not know who filled up the cheque given
by the staff members. However, cheques bears signature of the Proprietor.
It is not true to say that accused has not signed the cheques. It is not true
to say that the cheques are signed by somebody from the office of accused
given to me. I had seen the accused. Accused is identified by the witness
in court hall. I do not know whether business is run by father of the
accused and not by the accused. All four cheques at Exh.22 to 25 are
issued on and same day. As accused had no sufficient funds to encash all
-- 2 of 4 --
15 C.C.No.1065/SS/2019
CW-01 Exh.10
four cheques on one and same day, on his request I have presented those
cheques as per his instructions on various dates. Accused gave me cheques
with prospective dates. I have informed accused before deposing the
cheque for encashment. Several time accused was not taking my phone
call, not responding my whats app messages as such I deposited the
cheques on given dates of the cheques. Cheques were dishonored for the
reason ‘Funds Insufficient’. Demand notice was issued to the accused in
the year 2019 I can not recollect exact date of issuing notice. Accused had
not received the demand notice and the Postal Envelop were returned
back. It is not true to say that accused No.2 is not doing business. It is not
true to say that accused No.2 is not concerned with accused No.1 M/s.
Arihant Exports. It is not true to say that I have executed forged signatures
of the accused on the cheques and misused the same. It is not true to say
that accused No.2 had issued cheques towards security before starting
business with us. It is not true to say that accused No.2 had never visited
my shop at the time of starting business. It is not true to say that I have
filed false complaint against accused No.2 knowing well that he is not
doing business, on the basis of security cheques. I have no idea that father
of accused No.2 left permanently to Agra closing business and expired
there in the month of March, 2019. It is not true to say that I have filed
false case against accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 12.01.2026 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 3 of 4 --
16 C.C.No.1065/SS/2019
CW-01 Exh.10
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 : 12.01.2026.
Typed on : 12.01.2026.
Evidence printed and Signed on : 12.01.2026.
Order Uploaded on : 12.01.2026.
-- 4 of 4 --