KATHMANDU, NOVEMBER 8

"We believe that in 122 cases, the Special Court did not adequately weigh evidence"

Stung by the allegation that the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority does not complete thorough investigation before filing corruption cases against the accused in the Special Court as a result of which conviction rate is dipping, the anti-graft body organised a press conference today to drive home the point that the Special Court has not been weighing evidence properly in corruption cases.

Last year, out of 148 cases of abuse of authority that the CIAA filed at the Special Court, it secured conviction only in 38.81 per cent cases.

A few years ago, the percentage of conviction in corruption cases filed by the CIAA in the Special Court was much higher.

The Special Court had passed verdicts in favour of the CIAA in 67.82 per cent of cases in the fiscal 2017-18. In the current fiscal year, the Special Court delivered conviction verdict only in 41 out of 163 cases filed by the CIAA, a conviction rate of 25 per cent.

CIAA Spokesperson Shyam Prasad Bhandari said that out of 163 cases adjudicated by the Special Court in the current fiscal, his office appealed against 122 verdicts where the Special Court did not accept CIAA's claims.

"We admit that we were not able to gather enough evidence in 18 cases. But we believe that in 122 cases, the Special Court did not adequately weigh the evidence," Bhandari told THT.

He said the Special Court was delivering acquittal verdict in most of the cases on the basis of SC precedent that upheld CIAA sting operation illegal. In April, the apex court ruled that the CIAA's sting operations to arrest public post holders receiving bribes were illegal. The five-member constitutional bench had delivered the verdict in response to a writ petition filed by Advocate Bishnu Prasad Ghimire challenging Rule 30 of CIAA Rules that allows the anti-corruption body to provide money to its staffers, complainants, or anybody to trap bribe-seeking public post holders.

Bhandari said that the Evidence Act allows the court to deem valid audio-visual evidence, but the Supreme Court was not giving validity to any kind of audio-visual evidence.

"While the Special Court cannot be expected to give validity to sting operation as the SC had ruled against it, the Special Court cannot take a blanket approach to rule out evidentiary values of other audio-visual evidence, including the accused's recorded confession and attempts to seek bribe from service seekers," he argued.

A version of this article appears in the print on November 9, 2022 of The Himalayan Times.