Senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi and others filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against Attorney General Savita Bhandari's decision to amend the chargesheet against former Home Minister Lamichhane for money laundering and organized crime.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The Supreme Court has ordered the writ petition against the Attorney General's decision to allow the amendment of two charge sheets of Rastriya Swatantra Party President Ravi Lamichhane to be sent for full hearing.
A bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Shrikant Poudel ordered the matter to be sent for full hearing for a verdict, saying that written responses from all parties have been submitted.
The date for such a hearing is set for Chaitra 15.
After Attorney General Savita Bhandari decided to amend the charge sheets related to money laundering and organized crime against former Home Minister Lamichhane, senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi and others had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the decision. The first hearing on the writ petition was held and a show cause order was issued.
Senior advocate Tripathi, law student Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel Safal The writ petition filed has demanded that the decision of the Attorney General's Office be quashed as 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'.
Attorney General Savita Bhandari had decided on 10 Poush 2082 to amend the charge sheet so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'money laundering' in the cases filed against Lamichhane in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts would no longer stand.
In the said decision, the argument was presented that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that the interests of the savers should be given priority. Even though Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made the basis for the amendment of the charge, the writ petitioner claims that this is in practice an act of 'withdrawing the case'. The writ petition argues that the decision was a 'fraudulent use of law' when Section 116 of the Code prohibits the withdrawal of money laundering cases.
The writ petition states that granting immunity in serious financial crimes like money laundering will put Nepal on the blacklist of the International Financial Action Task Force and cause irreparable damage to the country.
It has also been argued that amending the indictment in cases like organized crime and money laundering that cannot be settled will deprive thousands of savers of their right to justice.
