The Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission has appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the decision made by the special court regarding the embezzlement of the land of Lalita Niwas is flawed.
The commission has appealed that the decision of the special court, in which Kaladhar Deuja is also the defendant, is not satisfactory in the case of corruption by illegally maintaining the government land in the Lalita Niwas camp in the name of individuals and organizations. The
commission filed a special case on January 22, 2076. In that case, on February 3, 2080, some were acquitted and some were acquitted. was given The commission said former ministers Vijay Kumar Gachchdar Dumbar Shrestha and Chandradev Joshi have again been made defendants. The
commission has stated that the decision was made without a fair analysis of the evidence to confirm the fact, that the employee who gained illegal benefits by undue influence should be punished according to the evidence and that the defendant should be found guilty based on the evidence and punished and fined.
The Commission has submitted the example of some neighboring countries and said that the decision of the special is wrong and wrong. Narahari Ghimire, spokesperson of the commission, informed that an appeal has been made against the decision of the special court regarding Lalita Niwas.
The commission submitted a conclusion that there were irregularities in 136 ropani land. In that irregularity, 60 government employees, 32 people called land owners or Mohi, 18 people who took government land on commission and 65 people for confiscation purposes were accused. The special committee acquitted political figures and former high-ranking officials, convicting only a few employees and others. The
commission appealed by mentioning some facts and legal provisions and the judgments of the courts of neighboring countries. "In the case of the defendant, it appears that the special court has acquitted the defendant on the basis that he was the main decision-maker of the collective decision of the Council of Ministers, the protection of the integrity of the same collective decision goes to this defendant, and even though the involvement of this defendant to some extent has not been confirmed, the commission has said in the appeal.
Similarly, in the appeal made by the commission, it is said that 'in the case of any offender involved in a criminal offence, no position or position or his influence or influence can ever be the basis of immunity or acquittal from criminal liability. In the decision of
special, the defendant who made the policy decision was acquitted by showing the status of the member who made the policy decision, and the commission mentioned that the acquittal was wrong. In the verdict, the second ground for acquittal has been mentioned that the defendant was involved in the decision, that his bad faith was not evident in the decision. The commission claims that this basis is not legal.
The commission has objected to the fact that the collective decision made by the cabinet and the individual decision made by the departmental minister should be looked at from a different point of view, without looking at the facts of the case presented in the same way, and the evidence that confirms the offenses against these defendants has been interpreted and analyzed as a policy decision in a roundabout way.
