The writ petition filed 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.”
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 the then Attorney General Savita Bhandari's decision to amend the charge sheet related to money laundering and organized crime involving National Independent Party President Ravi Lamichhane has concluded.
The debate, which began on Monday, concluded on Sunday . On the last day, senior advocate Raman Shrestha, advocate Dipendra Jha and others argued on behalf of Lamichhane. After their arguments, the parties to the writ petition filed counter-arguments and the debate concluded . The case before the bench of Justices Binod Sharma and Abdul Aziz Musalman was being heard on a case-by-case basis and was being heard on a priority basis .
The writ petition filed by senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, law students Ayush Badal and Yubaraj Poudel Safal demanded that the decision of the Attorney General's Office be quashed, saying it was 'prima facie illegal, malicious and arbitrary' Attorney General Bhandari had decided to amend the charge sheet against Lamichhane on 10 Poush 2082, so that the claims of 'organized crime' and 'money laundering' in the cases filed against him in the Kaski, Kathmandu, Rupandehi and Parsa district courts would no longer be valid.
The decision argued that Lamichhane was charged on the basis of political vendetta and that the interests of savers should be given priority. The writ petitioner claimed that even though Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made the basis for the amendment of the charge, it was in fact an act of 'withdrawal of the case'. The writ claimed that such a decision was wrong when Section 116 of the Code prohibits the withdrawal of cases related to money laundering.
The writ 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 this will cause irreparable damage to the country.
It has also been argued that amending charges in cases such as organized crime and money laundering that cannot be settled will deprive thousands of savers of their right to justice.
