The case has been under review since last Sunday in the bench of Supreme Court Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel.
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 debate on the writ petition against Attorney General Savita Bhandari's decision to amend the charge sheet related to money laundering and organized crime against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Ravi Lamichhane has concluded. With the debate over, the judges have started studying to write the verdict.
The case had been 'under review' in the bench of Supreme Court Justices Sharanga Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel since last Sunday.
Attorney General Bhandari herself argued on Sunday, while Deputy Attorney Generals Sanjiv Raj Regmi, Lokraj Parajuli, Khemraj Gyawali and Uddhav Raj Pudasaini, among others, argued on behalf of the government on Monday. Senior advocates Sushil Pant, Raman Shrestha and advocate Dipendra Jha have filed their legal briefs on behalf of Lamichhane. Rebuttal arguments were held on Tuesday and Thursday.
The writ petition filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel Safal has demanded that the decision of the Attorney General's Office be quashed as 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary'.
Attorney General Bhandari had decided on 30 Poush 2082 to amend the charge sheet in the cases filed against Lamichhane in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'wealth laundering' would no longer be valid
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 . The writ petitioner claims that even though Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code was used as the basis for amending the charge sheet, this is effectively 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.
