It cannot be imagined that when gold is kept sealed in government lockers, one quantity and the condition to be returned will become another. It cannot be imagined that the gold placed in the charge of the government by order from the court will be more different. But in the case of former Deputy Subba (NASU) of Tribhuvan Airport Customs Office, Niranjan Shrestha, it has been found that he did not want to withdraw the amount that was initially charged.

It was claimed in the indictment that 68 tolas of gold were seized by raiding Shrestha's house during the investigation on the charge of illegal acquisition of wealth by the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority. But he was convicted in a corruption case and when he went to take back the gold, it was found to be only 40 tolas. About 28 tolas of gold disappeared.

The price of the missing gold is 54 lakh 74 thousand according to the price of Sunday. In this way, since 28 tolas of gold is less, the dispute has reached the full bench of the Supreme Court, insisting that they should be acquitted or convicted, and 68 tolas of gold should be found.

This was the incident

On 31 July 2059, the authority team raided the house of Nasu Shrestha, who is working at the airport customs office, on the suspicion of acquiring illegal property . During the raid, the authority found a large amount of cash and undisclosed sources of illegal wealth acquisition from Shrestha's house.

The authority's team also seized 46 gold and silver bills. Shrestha claimed that the recovered gold worth Rs 5 lakh 21 thousand 430 was purchased in the name of himself and his family and argued that it was legal. They also claimed that wife Aruna Shrestha brought 25 tola gold as dowry in the dispute.

The authority found 6 lakh 57 thousand 990 rupees in Shrestha's bank account. At that time, the authority had raided the houses of 22 people in the same way. Shrestha was one of them. Gold and cash were also recovered from the house of another customs officer. At that time, the market price of gold was 9 thousand.

After arresting the gold in this way, the authority sent it to the Nepal Gold and Silver Traders Association to verify it. The association appointed Mani Ratna Shakya, the representative of Nepal Rastra Bank Taksar Department, investigation officer of the authority and the secretary of the association, to collect gold. They took out the details and market value of the gold recovered by the authority. The association gave a letter to the authority saying that after measuring and weighing, it is 776.800 grams and its market value will be 6 lakh 19 thousand 655.

On the basis of this letter, the authority registered the indictment of acute wealth acquisition in the special court on 25 November 2059 . The bench of Special Court Judges Bhupadhwaj Adhikari, Komalnath Sharma and Cholendra Shamsher Jabra acquitted the claim of authority on 22 February 2064.

After the acquittal, the authority appealed to the Supreme Court on 20 August 2065. The bench of the then Chief Justice Khilraj Regmi and Justice Tarkaraj Bhatt of the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the special court and found Shrestha guilty in the corruption case. The Supreme Court ruled that the source of the wealth of 14 lakh 15 thousand 456 rupees could not be confirmed and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and a fine as per Vigo.

Shrestha was arrested by the authority on 31 July 2059 and he was in prison until 4 November. He was released on bail by Special. After the Supreme Court said that he would be imprisoned for 6 months, Shrestha remained in prison for two more months. After serving the prison sentence on 14 August 2069, he reached the special court. He applied to provide all the things that were said not to be confiscated because he had been sentenced to imprisonment.

The Supreme Court told him in the judgment that he was sentenced to 14 million bigos and a fine equivalent to the seized cash and land and to return the recovered materials. According to this decision, he filed a special request for the return of the gold recovered during the raid by the authority.

Shrestha filed a petition to confirm and return the gold seized during the raid. The then registrar of the special court, Dhir Bahadur Chand (who is now a judge of the high court), ordered the submission of the petition as the gold tin box sent by the court was kept safe in the tax department.

On 14 August 2069, the registrar of the special court made such an order. After his order, the tax department took the gold weight . In this way, only 40 tolas were found when taking the weight . Shrestha went to the Supreme Court as soon as the department informed that about 28 tolas of gold was low.

On 16 Mansir 2069, Shrestha filed a lawsuit claiming that the decision made by the joint bench was flawed and that he should be acquitted or get back 68 tolas of gold . The review petition registered in the name of Shanti Shrestha passed through the bench of one judge and reached the full bench of three judges on 10 July 2070. The bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha, Sushila Karki and Vaydhanath Upadhyay ended the controversy by pronouncing the verdict that it will not be repeated.

But Shrestha was not satisfied with this decision. This dispute entered the Supreme Court with a new case under writ jurisdiction on 12 Chait 2070. Shrestha registered the case under the writ after seeing no possibility in the review. In the indictment filed under the name of Satyadevi Shrestha, there was a planned and wrong investigation on him and the gold seized during the raid was not returned with the exact details, so he put a demand for an interim order in the writ.

The Supreme Court held its first hearing on 19 Chait 2070. Interim order not issued . But it issued a show cause order demanding a written reply from the government. About 9 years after the first hearing, it was decided to submit it to the full bench on 29 Mansir 2079. Now this dispute has reached full through single bench .

According to an officer of the Attorney General's Office, the three-judge bench previously said that Nissa would not be granted, so now a larger (five-member) bench has to explain it. According to that officer, if Shrestha's gold is to be maintained at 68 tolas, then all of it should be returned and if it is to be maintained at 40 tolas, there are two situations where the facts should be heard and decided.

how it happened 68 tola gold 40 tola

Shrestha had claimed that the amount of gold has been overestimated since the case was filed in the special court. At that time, he made such a claim to be acquitted of the accusation of amassing wealth. Because the gold seized by the authority, the research officer and the representative of the gold and silver traders' association in Rohwar of the Rashtra Bank made a report with the details of the jewelry and the then valuation bond. In the said assessment, it was said that there is 776.800 grams of gold and it was said to be 6 lakh 19 thousand 655 according to the price of that time.

In this way, it does not seem to be so different in the evaluation done with one-by-one jewelry. Rajendra Shakya, the then general secretary of the gold and silver business association, said that since it had been many years, he did not remember anything about it. He asserted that there should not be any difference as there will be investigation officer of the authority, representative of the court along with the representative of Nepal Rastra Bank in the gold brought by the authority to verify.

Petitioner Shrestha claimed that the amount of gold was demanded to be ascertained many times in the court, but it was not done as planned, so now he has been found guilty and sentenced to 68 tolas, or else he has demanded to be acquitted in the Supreme Court . He said that he would not make any comment as the Supreme Court will decide on it after ascertaining it.

An officer of the public prosecutor (Attorney General's Office) who is debating this case from the authority commented that there was negligence in the investigation. He claimed that it was wrong to ask for the weight to be determined in a special court or to order a re-examination from the Supreme Court. The officer's comment is that since such a demand could not be made when the joint bench of the Supreme Court heard against the special verdict, it will now be considered that the government has disappeared 28 tolas of gold.

When the charge sheet was filed by the authority, it was 68 tolas, and if it was 40 tolas later, there should be a serious investigation, now it depends on the next order of the full bench, the officer argues. When did the