Supreme Court to Hear Corruption Case Involving Former Ministers Gupta and Shrestha in Kaski Litchi Orchard Scandal

The corruption case involving former ministers Rajkumar Gupta and Ranjita Shrestha, implicated in the Kaski Litchi Orchard scandal, has been scheduled for hearing at the Supreme Court.

 The corruption case against the two former ministers is scheduled for hearing on Tuesday before a division bench of Supreme Court Justices Nahakul Subedi and Shrikanta Paudel.

The case reached the Supreme Court after the Special Court ordered Gupta, implicated in the Litchi Orchard bribery case, to be sent to custody during the investigation.

The corruption case against former minister Ranjita Shrestha and the then Chief of the Land Revenue Office, Kaski, Ramchandra Adhikari, is being heard along with Gupta's.

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the Special Court's order that released Shrestha and Adhikari on a bail of five lakh rupees each.

Previously, the Supreme Court had ordered the submission of a report regarding former minister Gupta's petition. In the Pokhara Litchi Bari corruption case, the bench comprising Special Court Chairman Sudarshan Dev Bhatta and Justices Dilliratna Shrestha and Biddur Koirala had ordered Gupta to be sent to custody during the investigation.

The CIAA had filed a corruption case in the Special Court alleging that then-Minister Gupta took a bribe of 53 lakh rupees from a real estate businessman, claiming he would stop the transfer of Adhikari, the Chief of the Land Revenue Office in Kaski, and arrange for him to be appointed as a member of the Land Commission.

The CIAA had accused Minister Gupta and former minister Ranjita Shrestha of abusing their positions in collusion to accept a bribe of 25 lakh rupees for providing official favors. Gupta had claimed in his statement to the court that the allegations against him were false and that he had not taken any bribes from anyone. However, the court determined that he could not be considered innocent based on the evidence immediately available.