The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has filed a corruption case against the then engineer of the irrigation department, Bishnu Kumar Shrestha, after collecting 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 assets, which were found to be undisclosed assets.

The official 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 5th Chait, 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 illegally acquired assets in real estate and 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 constructing 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. Then from July 2046 to June 31, 2077, the movable and immovable property held in the name of him and his family was investigated by the authority. 

Out of the movable property 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 authority's spokesperson, a demand has been made against Shrestha to confiscate the property increased/increased through corruption. 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 Jayprakash 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 legal'. 

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 confiscation of land in 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 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 through 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. to collect illegal assets.

In the name of his son Vivek, it has been found that the all-round consultant company has been operating since February 1, 2075. In the name of his wife Lakshmi Kumari, Best Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was established in Lalitpur from Chait 16, 2074. In the name of Laxmikumari, Onward Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has been operating since August 12, 2065. 

Engineer Shrestha brought 5 annas and 1 paisa of land from Lalitpur's Nanibeti Bajracharya on 15th January 2053 with a bag of Rs 62,400. Buckpass can only be done between opening relationships. But it is mentioned in the charge sheet of the authority that there is no relationship between Shrestha and Bajracharya. According to