Lawyers from the Lamichhane side presented their arguments on Tuesday claiming that GB Rai is solely responsible and Lamichhane Karinda is the only one who does not have to bear the responsibility, since the charge sheet has not been filed and the Cooperative Act is not attracted.
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.
In the case of Suryadarshan Cooperative fraud case, the custody hearing against RSVP Chairman Ravi Lamichhane ended on Tuesday in the Kaski District Court. On Monday and Tuesday, 12 lawyers argued in favor of Lamichhane. Earlier, the debate between Chabilal Joshi and Leela Pachai's lawyers was over.
On Tuesday, the argument of another defendant, Ram Bahadur Khanal, has started. Senior advocates Sushil Kumar Pant, Raman Shrestha and Surendra Thapa argued for Lamichhane's release on Monday.
At the beginning of the debate on Tuesday, Judge Nitij Rai asked three questions to the lawyers from Lamichhane's side. According to a lawyer who participated in the courtroom, the judge asked for the opinion of the lawyer from the Lamichhane side regarding the report of the special parliamentary investigation committee.
'Some of the lawyers from the Lamichhane side have quoted what was written in the report of the parliamentary investigation committee, someone said that the parliamentary investigation committee was created to trap Dekhawati and Ravi, the husband's query was to reveal what this is,' said the lawyer. ;
The judge's second question was about Lamichhane cutting checks to pay various cooperatives even after leaving Gorkha Media Network. "What does the fact that Lamichhane went to Gurkha media and after he left Gurkha media indicate that the check was cut?," he asked. He asked another question to the legal practitioner in Lamichhane about the parliamentary inquiry special committee. Judge Rai asked the lawyers of Lamichhane's side to clarify the situation of 'Principle of Approbate and Reprobate', which tends to accept facts that benefit them and reject facts that are disadvantageous.
'Lamichhane's lawyer mentioned on page number 449 of the Parliamentary Inquiry Special Committee's report that Ravi Lamichhane's involvement was not seen when money went from Suryadarshan Sahakari to Gorkha Media. "They have accepted it," said a legal practitioner on behalf of the victim, "Thus, even if Ravi is innocent, a parliamentary inquiry committee was formed only to frame Ravi, and an inquiry committee could not have been formed in the pending case." The husband wanted to understand what was going on in this regard, but no concrete answer came from anyone.'
Lawyers from the Lamichhane side presented their arguments by claiming that GB Rai is solely responsible and Lamichhane Karinda is the only one who does not have to bear the responsibility, that the indictment should not have been filed because the time limit has been exceeded and that the Cooperative Act is not attracted . Senior advocate Rajendra Sedhai reiterated the argument that since GB Rai is in charge of the management of Gorkha Media Network, he is also in charge of the investment.
'Ravi Lamichhane did not say that he did not know that the money had come,' he said, 'but he did not know that the source of the money was illegal.' He argued that the charge sheet was taken on the basis of one-sided evidence, even though the source of the wealth was asked not to be revealed, he was not given an opportunity to reveal the source of the wealth.
"When you enter the court, you should come with clean hands, you should not use the wrong way when you enter the court," he said. It came in a different way than what the law envisages. This prosecution claim is not the basis for registration.'
Advocate Suraj Basnet argued that Lamichhane was trying to do the same by presenting an example of using poison to detect crimes during the Malla period and convicting the survivor and convicting the deceased. Advocate Dr. Narayan Kandel said that since Ravi Lamichhane only did the work assigned by the owner, he is innocent and the Cooperative Act is not attracted. Senior Advocate Rohitraj Bastola, Advocate Sanjay Gole, Sunita Raut, Sudeep K Pant, Ishwari Paudel also argued in favor of Lamichhane on Tuesday.
Advocate Ujjwalshankar Sapkota and Birendra KC argued on behalf of Ram Bahadur Khanal, owner of Nature Herbs. They claimed that even though Khanal did the work assigned by the former DIG Chabilal Joshi, it was of no use.
Khanal, who is a former security guard, argued that when he was working at a casino in Kathmandu, the amount in his bank account was too much because the customers who came there had deposited money in his account. On Wednesday, the debate of lawyers from Khanal's side will continue . After the conclusion of his arguments, the lawyers of the defendants Krishna Bahadur Gurung, Meena Gurung and Aarti Gurung will argue on Wednesday.
After the arguments of the lawyers of the 7 defendants who are in the custody of the Kaski police, there will be a counter-argument by the lawyers of the district attorney and the prosecutor. After the counter-argument, an order will come from the bench of Judge Rai that the defendants will be jailed for pre-trial detention, released on bail or released on a simple date .
