The case, which is pending before the bench of Supreme Court Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel, has been kept under review after the reply argument was not completed.
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 hearing of the writ petition against the Attorney General for amending the charge sheet in the money laundering and organized crime cases pending in various courts across the country, including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane, has been put on hold as the reply argument is pending.
The argument, which began on Sunday in the case filed before the bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel, began on Tuesday.
On Tuesday, senior advocate Sushil Pant, Raman Kumar Shrestha, and advocates Dipendra Jha and Narayan Dutt Kadenal, among others, argued on behalf of Lamichhane. In the argument, they argued that the Attorney General had amended the charge sheet by exercising the authority of Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the prosecution was forced. When they started presenting the argument that the charge against the President of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Lamichhane was based on political vendetta, Judge Sunil Kumar Pokharel asked.
‘The court argued that the case against Lamichhane was filed by falsely accusing him in the supplementary charge sheet.’ However, why did the Attorney General withdraw the case of not only Lamichhane but also the absconding GB Rai at once?’ Pokharel’s question was, ‘If it was aimed at a single person, should the case be withdrawn only in his case or if it was for someone else, should it be withdrawn?’
While Pokharel was asking questions, advocate Dipendra Jha was arguing. Jha defended himself by citing examples from India and various countries, saying that the Attorney General had made all the accused in the supplementary charge sheet, not just one.
After the argument of Lamichhane's lawyer, senior advocates Dinesh Tripathi, Surendra Bhandari and others made counter arguments. They argued that the writ should have been issued, that the case was withdrawn without amending the charge sheet, and that the Attorney General had abused his legal authority.
