Attorney General Sabita Bhandari had decided on December 10, 2005, to amend the charge sheet against Lamichhane in the cases filed against him in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi, and Parsa district courts, so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'money laundering' no longer stand.
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 writ petition against Attorney General Sabita Bhandari's decision to amend the charge sheet on money laundering and organized crime involving National Independent Party President Ravi Lamichhane has been adjourned after the debate was not completed.
The writ petitioner and the government lawyer have argued before a bench of Supreme Court Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel. Attorney General Bhandari herself had come to argue. However, the bench adjourned the hearing for Monday due to lack of time.
The writ petition filed on Thursday by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel Safal sought to quash the decision of the Attorney General's Office, calling it 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'.
Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai and others argued on behalf of the writ petitioner. A team including senior advocate Sushil Panta had arrived to argue on behalf of Lamichhane.
Attorney General Sabita Bhandari had decided on 10 Poush 2082 to amend the charge sheet so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'wealth laundering' in the cases filed against Lamichhane in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts would no longer stand.
In that 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 economic 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 charges in cases like organized crime and money laundering that cannot be settled will deprive thousands of savers of their right to justice.
