Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against Withdrawal of Organized Crime and Money Laundering Charges Against Rabi Lamichhane

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for the writ petition challenging the withdrawal of the organized crime and money laundering charges filed against Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) Chairman Rabi Lamichhane, alongside the cooperative fraud case.

Attorney General Sabita Bhandari had directed the District Government Attorney's Office to amend the cases of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering pending against Lamichhane in various districts. In a 7-page 'Comment and Order' endorsed by Attorney General Sabita Bhandari on Poush 30, district government attorneys were instructed to proceed only with the cooperative fraud case against Lamichhane and drop the other two serious charges.

The writ petition filed against the decision of Attorney General Bhandari by Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi, and law students Ayush Badal and Yuvraj Poudel, has been scheduled for hearing before a joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Nahakul Subedi and Abdul Aziz Muslim.

Although applications were submitted to the Kaski and Rupandehi District Courts following the Attorney General's directive, the hearing could not proceed because the case is sub judice in the Supreme Court. Following the directive from the Attorney General's Office, the government attorney's offices in Kathmandu and Parsa have not yet submitted applications to the District Court to amend the indictment against Lamichhane and others.

If the Supreme Court decides to dismiss the writ today, the District Court may grant permission to withdraw the case regarding the amendment of the charges against Lamichhane. If the Supreme Court refuses to allow the withdrawal of the case, the path for amending Lamichhane's case will be blocked.

Previously, in the case concerning Lamichhane's use of dual citizenship, the then Attorney General Dinmani Pokharel had decided not to press charges, and a writ petition was filed against that decision in the Supreme Court. That writ petition remains sub judice in the Supreme Court. If the court does not grant permission to withdraw the case, Lamichhane's original case will remain active. Whether the Attorney General's decision to withdraw the case will be implemented depends on the court's ruling.

Section 36, Sub-section 1 of the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code states that 'If, after a case has been filed in court, it appears necessary to amend the claim made in the initial charge due to the discovery of additional evidence, the concerned government attorney, with the approval of the Attorney General, may submit an application to the concerned court of the initial stage, stating the reasons for amending the indictment.' Sub-section (2) mentions that if an application is received under Sub-section (1) and its contents appear reasonable, the concerned court may issue an order to amend the indictment as per the application. However, the Attorney General's Office's decision does not clarify what additional evidence was found to warrant the amendment of the charges of organized crime and money laundering leveled against Lamichhane.

The phrase 'upon discovery of additional evidence' under Sub-section 1 of Section 36 implies that additional offenses can be added. The court will need to further interpret whether this section is intended for withdrawing the case or for the purpose of amendment.