Can any of the leanrned friends help me in this regard. One of my relative is falsely framed in a corruption charge. The complainant admits in cross examination that he knows he can not loan of more than 10000 and he obtained 10000 already. On another page he says "after getting 10000, he went again to the accused to get remaining 10000". It proves that he has false intentions and is not a man of integrity. Do you think it is a strong point? Can you site some decision supporting this?
I think I was not able to explain myself in the haste. The case is againt a bank officer for demanding & accepting bribe for a loan. The half the loan was already given but the remaining half could not be given legally. (and has not been given till date - after 17 years). The complainant admits in cross examination of defence lawyer that he knew only that much (half) loan was to be given to him.
So in effect he had already got the full loan in his own view.
Does this makes a strong point in favour of the defendent? Any citations would greatly help too.