The authority filed an appeal demanding the annulment of the special decision acquitting the then chiefs of the District Malport Office, Parsa, Prakash Prasad Pokharel and Gam Bahadur Vishwakarma.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has gone to the Supreme Court against the decision of the special court acquitting the defendant accused of misappropriating the revenue collected at the Malport Office. The Authority has appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday, demanding that the decision of the special court acquitting the then chiefs of the District Malport Office, Parsa, Prakash Prasad Pokharel and Gum Bahadur Bishwakarma, is flawed.
The authority filed a case in the special court on Chait 28, 2079 on the charge of 'not filing the collected revenue in accordance with the prevailing law', according to section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2059, imprisonment for 6 to 8 years and a fine of 95 lakh 8 thousand 34 rupees. In the same case, two other defendants, Madan Prasad Gupta and Nagendra Prasad Choudhary, were specially found guilty and sentenced to fine and imprisonment for 5 years.
Pokharel, who was made a defendant by the authority, was the head of the Port Office Parsa from July 1, 2072 to May 12, 2073 and Vishwakarma was the head of the Port Office Parsa from May 22, 2073 to June 31.
In the case of 'the head of the office looking into whether or not the revenue has been filed, as there is a clear legal provision that if there is no filing, the defendant should be made to file immediately. However, the authority has said that the decision has been appealed against because the issue of acquitting the head of the office even after establishing a crime in the case is flawed.
The special court acquitted Pokharel and Vishwakarma on the grounds that both of them had 'denied statements', 'delegated authority to subordinate officers and themselves when they were head of office', 'did not raise or file revenue or did it themselves,' and found the defendants guilty and 'not shown that these defendants did it'.
However, in the appeal of the authority, it was confirmed that ``the head of the office regularly checks whether the revenue has been filed or not, and if there is no filing, the defendant, who is the head of the office, has embezzled Rs.
The authority claims that there is a clear provision in the Land Administration Guideline, 2058 that the head of the office should regularly check whether or not the revenue has been filed.
It is mentioned in the appeal that the head of Fantwala accounting branch and the head of the office are the main responsible for the matter of revenue filing.
Out of the 1 crore 98 lakh 33 thousand rupees received from the land purchase and sale registration through the Land Office, Parsa, only 1 crore 3 lakh 25 thousand rupees were deposited in the government treasury and the remaining amount was embezzled.
