The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has filed a corruption case against Bishnu Kumar Shrestha, the then engineer of the Irrigation Department, by maintaining a bribe of around 50 million rupees. The Authority has also made four other members of Shrestha's family, who live in Dhobighat, Lalitpur, from Neelkanth Municipality-3, Dhading, as defendants.

Since the property details submitted by Shrestha from the time of his entry into public service to the period of his retirement were found to be different from the real movable property details, the authority filed a case in a special court with the demand for imprisonment and fine and confiscation of the property, which was found to be undisclosed. Officials involved in the investigation said that the amount of Rs 48.88 lakh 30 thousand 329 rupees was fixed from a low valuation, but according to current trends, its market price will be up to 15 times higher. The authority has made Shrestha's wife Laxmikumari, son Vivek, father Harikumar and mother Indrakumari Shrestha defendants for the purpose of confiscating the illegal assets in the name of the family.

Shrestha, who entered the public service as a sub-engineer on July 1, 2046, was compulsorily retired on July 1, 2077. During this period, he was employed in 16 government offices. He was promoted to official third level on Chait 5, 2064. It is mentioned in the charge sheet filed in the court that while in government service, Shrestha managed illegal assets in the name of himself and his family members. According to the authority, the investigation revealed that Shrestha invested the illegally acquired property in real estate, purchase of shares of various companies, establishment of companies, insurance, etc.

A complaint was filed with the Authority on August 4, 2080, claiming that while building structures for irrigation and water-borne disaster control, bribes/commissions were taken from contractors, investments were made in real estate, vehicles, share purchase, company establishment etc. from illegal assets and such assets were hidden in the name of family members. After that, the movable and immovable property held in the name of him and his family from July 2046 to June 31, 2077 was investigated by the authority.

Among the movable assets in the name of Shrestha and his family members, the source of only 112 million 25 lakh 65 thousand 199 rupees was revealed, but during the investigation, it was found that the property was 16 million 13 lakh 95 thousand 528 rupees. "Wherever the land has been found, it has been calculated based on the government's low valuation at the time of purchase, and it seems that the revenue evasion has also been undervalued when the land is passed through property," said an officer involved in the investigation.

According to Narahari Ghimire, the spokesperson of the authority, a demand has been made to confiscate the assets that have been increased/increased through corruption against Shrestha. According to the Supreme Court's past judgments and precedents, it is mentioned that the property increased/increased through corruption should not be considered as original property. The judicial principle that the defendant himself has to confirm that the property submitted by him is legitimate has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the judgment of the corruption case in which former Minister of Communications Jay Prakash Prasad Gupta was the defendant. In the case of Shrestha, the authority has included this example in the charge sheet. The Supreme Court has explained that in the case where Yuvraj Sharma, the former head of the oil corporation, is the defendant, 'when the source of the basic property cannot be confirmed, the property increased/increased from it automatically becomes illegal and remains in a position of confiscation'. Similarly, in the corruption case in which former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka was the defendant, it was decided that 'when the property increased/increased from the undisclosed property is recognized as income, it creates a situation where the source of the basic property is confirmed, which cannot be in accordance with the law'.

There is a demand of the authority to confiscate all the properties of 7 places in the name of Shrestha and his family, partial confiscation in 6 places and to confiscate the land of 6 more places to compensate the insufficient amount. There is a demand to freeze the land of 15 places including houses in two places in Dhading and Lalitpur till the end of the case. Out of the 40,650 shares held in the name of Shrestha and his family, 9,000 shares have been requested to be withheld.

It has been revealed from the investigation that Shrestha was involved in the purchase and sale of land from some time after entering the public service. According to the Authority, it has been found that he has invested in various companies from establishing various companies, buying and selling shares, becoming a partner with people who have no family relationship, buying land, insurance etc. It has been found that the all-round consultant company has been operating in the name of his son Vivek since February 1, 2075. In the name of his wife Laxmi Kumari, Best Solutions Pvt Ltd was established in Lalitpur from Chait 16, 2074. Onward Consultants Pvt Ltd company in the name of Laxmikumari has been operating since August 12, 2065.

Engineer Shrestha brought 5 annas and 1 paisa land from Lalitpur's Nanibeti Bajracharya on 15th January 2053 with a bag of Rs.62 lakhs and 400 rupees. Buckpass can only be done between the opening of the relationship. But it is mentioned in the charge sheet of the authority that there is no relationship between Shrestha and Bajracharya. According to research sources, Jagga Shrestha got his hands on the land in the name of Buckpass to manage the bribe. In the statement, he has claimed that he has done financial transactions from legal assets. But it is mentioned in the charge sheet that there is no basis to confirm his claim. According to the authority, Shrestha has insured with various insurance companies including American Life, but the source of the premium amount for that has not been disclosed.