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 debate between the defendant and the whistle-blower's lawyers has ended on the arrest warrant against 7 people who are in the custody of the Kaski police in the money fraud case of Suryadarshan Cooperative. The order will come from the bench of District Judge Nitij Rai after the public prosecutor's counter argument on Thursday.
Advocates Raman Karna, Ram Ghimire and Ved Bahadur Bista argued on behalf of Zaherwala in the district court on Wednesday. Before that, senior advocate Bishnu Prasad Sharma and Mohan Bahadur Thapa argued on behalf of the defendant Ram Bahadur Khanal.
Advocates Hari Subedi and Gangaprasad Subedi on behalf of the defendant Krishna Bahadur Gurung and Meena Gurung and Aarti Gurung on behalf of senior advocate Surendra Thapamagar and advocate Manoj Ghartimar argued behind closed doors. The debate of the legal professionals of Chabilal Joshi, Leela Pachai and Ravi Lamichhane side was already over.
Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that there is enough evidence to jail all seven people including Lamichhane. Advocate Karna claimed that the cooperative was an organized fraud as a company named Gorkha Media Network Pvt.
He argued that he could not get away with showing GB Rai as Lamichhane was still in an executive role as Managing Director at Gorkha Media.
GB Rai has been found guilty of embezzling money from cooperatives to Gorkha media. Such a big embezzlement is not possible in Rai's single role," he said, "It seems that Gorkha Media was opened to embezzle the money of the cooperative and Ravi Lamichhane became the MD (Managing Director) to spend the money from there. If he had taken the loan as a member of the cooperative, this case would not have been filed against him. He took loans without being a member, took them illegally. He took money from the cooperative to the company and spent it, that's why the case started.'
