Earlier, the Attorney General's Office under the then government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal had decided to acquit Lamichhane for holding dual citizenship of the US and Nepal and using dual passports. A writ petition against that decision is pending in the Supreme Court.
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.
Attorney General Savita Bhandari has directed the government attorneys' offices to amend the chargesheets against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) President Rabi Lamichhane in various district courts related to money laundering and organized crime. Based on the application filed by Lamichhane, Bhandari instructed the government attorneys of Kaski, Rupandehi, Kathmandu and Parsa on Tuesday.
Now, the district government prosecutors will be able to file a petition with the district court to amend the charge sheet against Lamichhane for organized crime and money laundering. The district court will file it for hearing. After the hearing, if the district court allows it, the charge sheets will be amended.
If the district court does not allow it, the old charge sheet will remain in place. This dispute may reach the Supreme Court. Earlier, the Attorney General's Office under the then government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal had decided to acquit Lamichhane on the issue of dual citizenship of the United States and Nepal and the use of dual passports. A writ petition filed against that decision is pending in the Supreme Court.
While directing the district court to amend the charge sheet in the case currently pending, Attorney General Bhandari has commented that the parliamentary committee led by Surya Thapa has not found Lamichhane's involvement in bringing money from the cooperative. Similarly, she has also taken as a basis the fact that Lamichhane was not named when the initial charge sheet for cooperative fraud was filed and there was no investigation. Lamichhane himself was the Home Minister when the initial charge sheet was filed. The Attorney General claims that the supplementary charge sheet was filed without solid evidence and adequate investigation for money laundering and organized crime.
Lamichhane has also taken as a basis the claim that he was retaliated against in his application to the Attorney General's Office. Bhandari has made the fourth basis that Lamichhane is not a member of any of the cooperatives from which the money is alleged to have been embezzled, according to which it is argued that how can a person who is not a member of the cooperative take a loan and embezzle it.
The fifth basis is the purpose of returning the depositor's money. It is claimed that the rights and interests of the victim depositors have been given priority in the decision. Attorney General Bhandari has approved the amendment of the charge sheet in accordance with Section 36 of the National Criminal Code. However, the order to make such an amendment must have been given by the relevant court of the first instance before the decision is made.
Sub-section 1 of Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that ‘If additional evidence is found in a case that has already been filed in court and it is found that the claim previously filed needs to be amended, the concerned government prosecutor may, with the approval of the Attorney General, file an application to the concerned court of the first level, stating the reasons.’ Sub-section (2) states that if an application is filed pursuant to Sub-section (1) and if its content is reasonable, the concerned court may issue an order to amend the claim in the charge sheet as per the application.
In the case of Lamichhane, experts in criminal law say that the charge sheet cannot be amended only for one person because the imprisonment and damages were claimed not only for one person but for all those involved. Senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi commented that it was objectionable that the charge sheet amendment was being brought in a case that was supposed to go to trial.
‘Those who believe in the rule of law cannot accept such a practice,’ he said, ‘You cannot come and amend the charge sheet now. This is not envisaged by any law. If he is innocent, the court will speak through the verdict. The state cannot interfere in the decision made by the court.’
Tripathi also commented that the Attorney General’s approval for amending the charge sheet was abuse of office. ‘If it continues like this, the criminals will get immunity through collusion,’ he said, ‘Such a step is illegal and based on bad intentions. The state should prosecute effectively, not weaken it.’
Why is an amendment being sought?
There were three reasons at the time when Lamichhane wanted the charge sheet amended – to weaken the case, to pave the way for him to become a minister by becoming an MP, and to be easily released on bail as only the cooperative fraud case remained. Lamichhane was released on bail on 3 December. Now he wants to participate in the upcoming House of Representatives elections and win, enter parliament and pave the way for him to become a minister.
Lamichhane was suspended last year after the charge sheet was registered in the Kaski District Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. After the case was filed, Kaski police wrote a letter to Speaker Devraj Ghimire on 2002 to suspend Lamichhane from his position as an MP.
After that, Speaker Ghimire published a notice suspending him. Section 27 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides that any employee, office-bearer or public servant will be automatically suspended until the case is resolved. As long as the money laundering case remains, Lamichhane will be suspended from his position as an MP even if he wins the upcoming House of Representatives elections.
