Ravi Lamichhane, the then managing director of Gorkha Media Network Pvt. Ltd., has been sent to judicial custody by the Kathmandu District Court in the Swarnalakshmi Cooperative fraud. The bench of Judge Madhav Prasad Adhikari, who appeared on Sunday on the third day after he was released from custody in Kaski, ordered him to be sent to custody. His custody hearing will be held from Monday.

A case was filed in Kathmandu on December 21 against Lamichhane and 39 others on the charge of systematically defrauding 5,500 savers of Swarnalakshmi Cooperative to the tune of 1.19 billion. The indictment was read out to Lamichhane during his statement in court on Sunday. After that, it was asked, "What is the false accusation?" Open up.'

Regarding his name appearing in the banking software system of Swarnalakshmi Cooperative, Lamichhane has claimed that he does not know how it happened, but he is not a debtor in the cooperative. He also has a statement.

'I cut the check on the instructions of Gitendrababu (GB) Rai, the president of the company, therefore Rai is responsible, I used to sign a blank check and leave,' he said in the statement. He was asked if he had anything to say. In response, Lamichhane said, 'I have not cheated anyone, I am innocent, let me be acquitted'. After the statement, the judicial officer sent Lamichhane to judicial custody to appear in court at 10 am on Monday.

"The statement is over on Sunday," said Srestedar Ramu Sharma, "Now his case will be heard regularly from Monday." According to the court's order, Lamichhane has been kept in District Police Complex Bhadrakali Kathmandu.

On the other hand, the co-operative victims have demanded to appeal against the order of the Kaski District Court to release 7 people on bail, including the founding president of Raswapa, Lamichhane, who has been accused of organized co-operative fraud and money laundering.

Kaski district court has presented half a dozen grounds to reveal Lamichhane's crime in co-operative fraud, but the co-operative victims have claimed that they will not be able to give any kind of concession to the accused until they get justice. After their pressure, the District Public Prosecutor's Office has prepared an appeal to the Pokhara High Court. 

The district court found that 814 checks of Gorkha Media Company were transacted with the single signature of the defendant (Ravi Lamichhane), he was in a position of responsibility like the managing director and even signed checks before becoming an official person of the company and even after his separation, and the funds of the cooperative were deposited into Lamichhane's account. And it has been mentioned in the order that there was also an action to go elsewhere.

Similarly, 2 crores of Suryadarshan Cooperative went to GB Rai's account in Standard Chartered Bank and 75 lakhs of the same amount went to Gorkha Media through Ravi Lamichhane's account in Global IME Bank. Even if there is no reasonable basis to say that the defendant is not guilty from the basic evidence including the relationship with other defendants and bank account transactions (business), the court ordered to take 6.5 million bail and keep it on date as per the judgment.

In this way, even though Lamichhane's involvement in cooperative fraud was mentioned in half a dozen Aadhaar orders, the court did not reveal the reason why he should be released on bail.

The district court ordered that 6 people who were arrested for the fraud of Suryadarshan Cooperative last year were sent to jail for pre-trial detention. Although they filed petitions in Pokhara High Court and Supreme Court demanding their release, they are in jail because the order of Kaski Court was upheld.

The government attorney's office said that although the defendant in the case where the prison sentence of more than three years was demanded should be sent to pre-trial detention, there were plenty of grounds and reasons. Lamichhane, Joshi and others were filed in the district court demanding imprisonment for 15 years for money laundering. 

According to Kiran Shrestha, the coordinator of Suryadarshan Chattapidit Sangharsh Samiti, the government attorney's office informed that after studying the order of the Kaski court, they will file an application in the high court within a day or two. "There was a different order than what the victim expected. There has been a discussion between the prosecutor and the public prosecutor about going to appeal," he said. So we have asked to appeal.' 

Section 73 of the Civil Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a petition can be filed in the court hearing the appeal, where it is mentioned that the party who is not satisfied with the imprisonment or the specified bond, surety or bank guarantee can file a petition in the court hearing the appeal up to one level. However, an application can be made to the court that hears appeals at a higher level on the question of the cancellation of the order of imprisonment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or 10 years or more.

Therefore, as 15 years imprisonment is demanded against Lamichhane and others for money laundering, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the Kaski District Court.

The coordinator of Sangharsh Committee, Shrestha, also questioned the date written in the order. District Judge Nitij Rai's bench gave an order to release seven people including Lamichhane on bail on August 25, but the order mentions "August 24" in two places. Shrestha said that even in the issued order, the date of the previous day was suspicious.

'If such an order comes, no victim will go to court,' he said, 'The case of other cooperatives has already shown that releasing the victim on bail does not guarantee that the money will be returned -break The whistleblowers have also raised ethical questions against District Judge Rai. Rai worked as a trainee in the law firm of 'Jurist & Company' of senior advocate Sushil Pant, who argued on behalf of Lamichhane, and they raised the question of how Pant's argument was conducted in Rai's bench.

The practice of a guru debating and a disciple giving orders is not natural in the judicial field, as soon as senior advocate Pant came, either Judge Rai should have stopped him in the debate or he should have left the court. Even the minimum morality has not been demonstrated, so the victims have not been able to feel that they have got justice," said an official of the district attorney's office.