Interim Order 4

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 12 C.C.No.1258/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.13
28. 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 : 12.01.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Gordon Gaspar D’souza by advocate Mr.
V. R. Pal for the accused :
29. I am retired person. I was doing businesses and working in
small firms. I am retired in the year 2000. We are only three persons in
my family. At present I am residing at Vile Parle. My wife is a retired
teacher. My son is also doing small business. Our monthly family
income is around Rs.60,000/-. My wife was assessed for paying Income
Tax. I am knowing accused No.2 Zakir Sayyad since year 2017. I came
in his contact seeing the advertisement published by him in News
papers for recruitment and jobs. It is true to say that the transaction
had taken place in between my son and ACE Media and Recruitment
Services Ltd. After reading advertisement given by the accused I
approached to their office at Bhandup in the year 2017.
30. I do not know whether my son had made signature or not
on the application. It is true to say that demand notice was not sent to
ACE Media and Recruitment Services Ltd. It is true to say that ACE
Media and Recruitment Services Ltd. is not made party to the
complaint. It is true to say that ACE Media and Recruitment Services
Ltd. has given confirmation letter to my son. It is not true to say that
demand notice is not served to accused No.3 Pratap More. Now I am
shown notice Exh.28. It is true to say that the name of accused No.3 is
absent in the notice Exh.28. It is not true to say that I have implicated
-- 1 of 4 --
13 C.C.No.1258/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.13
accused No.3 deliberately to harass him. It is not true to say that
accused No.3 is not concerned with the case. It is true to say that it is
not mentioned in my complaint that the accused No.2 and 3 are
directors and responsible for day to day business of the company.
Cross examination is deferred till next date on oral request
of the advocate for the accused.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 12.01.2024 Metropolitan Magistrate,
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
Date : 19.12.2024
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Gordon Gaspar D’souza by
advocate Mr. V. R. Pal for the accused :
31. Accused and their advocate absent. Hence, No Cross.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 19.12.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 2 of 4 --
14 C.C.No.1258/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.13
Date : 17.03.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Gordon Gaspar D’souza by
advocate Mr. V. R. Pal for the accused after recalling witness:
32. I was running business of Cloud Kitchen that is supplying food
on receiving order. My son is doing business of designing Magazines
and Graphics. I know name of Mr. Suday Yelve and Ms. Monika as both
accepted the fees and they were present at the time of issuing cheque.
They were present and asked me to issue new cheque in place of first
cheque. I met with them for more than five times. I do not have their
personal contact number. It is true to say that I have not made them
accused in present complaint. It is true to say that I have not sent
statutory notice to Shri. Yelve and Ms. Monika. My son is assessable to
Income Tax. As I have made payment from my bank account, I have
shown the transaction in my Income Tax Returns. My son is little
handicap.
33. It is not true to say that the cheque given to me was for security
purpose. It is not true to say that I have filed false case against the
accused. It is not true to say that accused No.2 and 3 have no legal
liability to make payment to me. It is not true to say that accused No.1
also has no legal liability to make payment to me. It is true to say that
in my demand notice Exh.28 I have not mentioned that accused No.2
and 3 are responsible persons for conducting business of accused No.1
as its directors and they are liable for accused No.1. It is not true to say
that I have not sent legal demand notice to accused No.2 and 3. It is
not true to say that my complaint is not maintainable on the basis of
statutory notice filed by me. I do not know whether I have not
-- 3 of 4 --
15 C.C.No.1258/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.13
produced the postal receipt of Registered Post for the notice sent to the
accused No.3. It is not true to say that I have not issued demand notice
to the accused No.2 and 3. It is not true to say that accused No.2 and 3
have not received the demand notice. It is not true to say that I have
filed complaint for harassing the accused. It is not true to say that the
accused No.2 and 3 are not the directors of accused No.1 company. It is
not true to say that accused No.2 and 3 have no role with ACE Media
and Recruitment Services Ltd. or accused No.1 company. It is not true
to say that I have filed false complaint and deposing false against the
accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 17.03.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 4 of 4 --