सिंहदरबार संवाददाता
Kathmandu. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the decision of the Special Court regarding the misappropriation of Lalita Niwas land is erroneous.
The Commission has appealed, stating that the decision of the Special Court, including defendant Kaladhar Deuja, in the case of corruption by illegally retaining government land inside the Lalita Niwas camp in the name of a specific person and organization, is not satisfactory.
The Commission had filed a case in the Special Court on 22 Magh 2076. In that case, the Special Court had acquitted some and partially acquitted some on 3 Falgun 2080. The Commission has again made former ministers Vijay Kumar Gachhadar Dambar Shrestha and Chandradev Joshi defendants. The Commission has stated that the decision was made without a fair analysis of the evidence to confirm the facts, that those who obtained illegal benefits by putting employees under undue influence should be taken action according to the evidence, and that the defendant should be found guilty based on the evidence and punished and fined, but this was not the case.
The Commission has also cited examples from some neighboring countries and stated that the decision of the special court is erroneous and unfortunate. Commission spokesperson Narahari Ghimire informed that an appeal has been filed against the decision of the special court in the case of Lalita Niwas. The Commission had submitted a conclusion that there was irregularity in 136 ropanis of land. In that irregularity, 60 government employees, 32 landowners or tenants, 18 people who took government land on commission, and 65 people for confiscation purposes were claimed as accused.
The special court had acquitted political figures and former high-ranking officials, while holding some employees and only a few others guilty. The Commission has filed an appeal citing some facts and legal provisions and decisions made by the courts of neighboring countries.
“In the case of the defendant, the special court has given its decision on the grounds that the Council of Ministers is the main decision-maker of the collective decision, the integrity of the same collective decision is protected even for these defendants, and even if these defendants are involved to some extent, their bad intentions have not been proven,” the Commission has said in its appeal.
Similarly, the Commission has said in its appeal that “in the case of any offender involved in a criminal offense, any position or status or his influence or authority can never be used as a basis for exemption or acquittal from criminal liability. In the case of an individual who has committed a criminal offense, nor can any person be given a policy-based “The decision should be acquitted in the veil of justice.”
The Commission has stated that the special judgment acquitted the defendant who made the policy decision by showing his status as a member of the policy decision-making body, and that this acquittal was wrong. The judgment mentions the second ground for acquittal that the defendant did not show any malice in making the decision in which he was involved.
The Commission claims that this ground is not in accordance with the law. The Commission has objected to the fact that the evidence proving the crimes against these defendants has been interpreted and analyzed in a roundabout way as a policy decision, without looking at the facts of the case, which should be viewed from a different perspective, as a collective decision made by the Council of Ministers and an individual decision made by a departmental minister.
प्रतिक्रिया दिनुहोस्