The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the special court acquitting the defendant accused of embezzling the revenue collected from the Malpot Office.

 The authority has appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday, demanding that the decision of the special court acquitting the then chiefs of the District Malport Office, Parsa, Prakash Prasad Pokharel and Gum Bahadur Bishwakarma, is flawed.

In the charge of 'not filing the collected revenue in accordance with the prevailing law', the authority imposed imprisonment for 6 to 8 years and embezzled revenue amounting to 95 lakh 8 thousand 34 rupees in accordance with section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2059, along with the demand for a double fine. A case was filed in a special court. In the same case, the other two defendants, Madan Prasad Gupta and Nagendra Prasad Chaudhary, were found guilty and sentenced to fine and imprisonment for 5 years as per the above. The authority has called for the reversal of the special verdict acquitting the two other office heads, Pokhrel and Vishwakarma, saying it was flawed.

Pokharel, who was made a defendant by the authority, was the head of the Port Office Parsa from 072 July to 073 May 12 and Vishwakarma from 073 May 22 to June 31. As there is a clear legal provision that the head of the office regularly checks whether or not the revenue has been filed, the defendants, who are the heads of the office, encouraged Gupta and Chaudhary to commit corruption by not filing the revenue from the revenue collected in the year 2072/73. However, it has been said that even after establishing the crime in the case, the authority acquitted the head of the office, saying that the decision was flawed.

The special court made a 'denial statement' while acquitting Pokharel and Vishwakarma, while both of them were the head of the office, they 'delegated authority to the subordinate officer and Fantwala himself',  "Revenue money was not collected or filed or the situation was not seen from the missile",  The defendants were found guilty and acquitted on the grounds that there was no evidence that these defendants had committed the crime. However, according to the authority, the matter of embezzlement of 93 lakh 66 thousand 209 rupees from the revenue collected in the year 072/73 by the defendants, who are the heads of the office, without filing, has been mentioned in the appeal of the authority, which has been ignored in the judgment. .

The head of the office should regularly look into whether or not the revenue has been filed.

It is mentioned in the appeal that the head of the Fantwala accounting branch and the head of the office are the main responsible for the matter of revenue filing, because the employees working in the Malport Office Parsa during the investigation and appeared in the court and gave the bank statement of the same period should be taken as evidence. In Section 18 of the Evidence Act, 2031, there is a legal provision that states, "In the course of an investigation or investigation related to any work, incident or situation, a person who states something mentioned in a document prepared in accordance with the prevailing law can be admitted as evidence if he appears in court as a witness and gives a statement."