Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: 16 C.C.No.1316/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.08
15. 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 : 29.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class)
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Ashok kumar Garg by advocate Mr.
U.R.Yadav for the accused :
16. I am commerce graduate. M/s Prachi Steels is a trader,
stockist and supplier. It is true to say that I have not produced any
document to show that I am proprietor of M/s Prachi Steel. Witness
volunteers but I am having GST number. It is not true to say that I am
not proprietor of Prachi steels. It is not true to say that I have no legal
authority to file the complaint on behalf of M/s Prachi Steels. It is not
true to say that I have no authority to depose on behalf of complainant
M/s Prachi Steels. M/s Prachi Steels is having only one office and no
branches. We maintain two godowns for M/s Prachi Steels one is at Ray
Road East and other is at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai. The godown at
Kalamboli is my ownership godown and the godown at Ray road is a
lease property. I can not tell the names of godown keepers from year
2017 to 2020. Witness volunteers that at the time of transaction in
question Rajesh Patel was the godown keeper at Kalamboli. There are
no separate departments in my office except the counter of accountant.
It is true to say that accept the documents produced along with
evidence affidavit I do not possess any other document with me. It is
not true to say that accused has never issued me any purchase order in
writing. Witness volunteers that he had sent message through whatsapp
media. It is true to say that in present case the purchase order is not
-- 1 of 4 --
17 C.C.No.1316/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.08
sent even through email. It is true to say that the statement made in my
affidavit of evidence paragraph no.2 that accused no.2 sent purchase
order from his email id is incorrect. Now I am shown document at
Exh.12. It is true to say that the mobile number of the accused or my
mobile number is not shown in said document. It is true to say that I
have produced the certificate under section 65(4)B of Evidence Act in
respect of authenticity of electronic document. It is not true to say that
accused has never sent the purchase order mentioned in document
Exh.12. It is not true to say that the document that is whatsapp
message screenshots is forged and morphed document. It is true to say
that I have not produced any document to show that accused Sanjay
Mehta is a proprietor of accused no.1. It is not true to say that he is not
the proprietor and he is only a broker. The role of broker in our
business is to make inquiry as to availability of goods, give purchase
order, collect the payment for the goods supplied on credit basis from
the purchaser. It is true to say that the invoice use to be generated in
the name of purchaser of the goods. It is true to say that the material
for which purchase order is given used to be supplied to the purchaser.
17. Now I am shown delivery challan Exh.13. It is true to say
that it indicates name of Sanjay Mehta as a broker. It is true to say that
the signature below name of broker on Exh.13 is not the signature of
Sanjay Mehta. It is signature of receiver of the goods. It is true to say
that I have prepared the delivery challan Exh.13. It is true to say that
Exh.13 do not bear my signature. It is not true to say that on the date
of preparing delivery challan Exh.13, the rate and amount of goods was
not determined. As a custom, we do not tell the rate and amount to
delivery persons or godown keeper. It is true to say that accused Sanjay
Mehta has not personally received the material mentioned in delivery
-- 2 of 4 --
18 C.C.No.1316/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.08
challan Exh.13. It is not true to say that accused has never asked me to
supply and deliver the goods on his behalf to any person in writing. It is
true to say that there is nothing in writing from the accused for
handing over the delivery.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 29.01.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 3 of 4 --
19 C.C.No.1316/SS/2019
CW-1 Exh.08
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Clerk : Ms Shama Nitin Naiksatam
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 29.01.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 29.01.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 29.01.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 29.01.2025.
-- 4 of 4 --