From the aforesaid evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that though he was instructed to give the entire amount of ` 120/- on demand being made, he gave ` 20/- only to A2. Further, according to the complainant an amount of ` 120 was demanded from him after receiving the certificate and A2 was standing at a distance of one to two feet from A1. However, A2 did not inquire from the complainant as to why only ` 20/- was being given though A1 had told him to give an amount of ` 120/-. This again raises a doubt as regards demand of ` 120/- by A1 in the backdrop of the complainant giving ` 20/- to A2 despite being instructed to give the entire amount of ` 120/- whenever the demand was made. When this conduct of the complainant is considered along with his admission in the cross-examination that A2 did not make any demand, the entire episode gives rise to serious suspicion. There is no explanation as to why the instructions given to the complainant at the Anti-Corruption Bureau office of giving the entire amount of ` 120/- on demand were not followed. {Para 12}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177 of 2015 and 1183 of 2015
Decided On: 19.08.2026
Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek Vs. State of Gujarat
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 890,MANU/SC/0917/2026.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment