Other employees acquitted
KATHMANDU, March 7: The Special Court convicted two former chairpersons of the Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) in a corruption case related to the procurement of the Mobile Device Management System (MDMS) but acquitted the other accused employees.
On Thursday, a joint bench of Judges Tek Narayan Kunwar, Ritesh Thapa, and Bidur Koirala found former chairpersons Digambar Jha and Purushottam Prasad Khanal guilty in the embezzlement case. The court ruled that they committed offenses under Section 8, Subsection (1), Clauses (a), (d), and (j) of the Corruption Prevention Act, 2002. Additionally, the court convicted the company that secured the contract.
MDMS to be fully implemented from today, entrepreneurs expect a...
The Special Court ordered a one-year prison sentence and a fine of Rs 58.15 million each for the former chairpersons, matching the embezzled amount.
Additionally, the Special Court imposed the same penalty on the joint venture of Numera (M) SDN, Berhad (BHD) Malaysia, OSI Consulting Pvt. Ltd. India, and Namaste Global Communication Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, which secured the MDMS contract.
Furthermore, the court convicted Datuk Mohammad Noor Amin, the chairman of leading company Numera, of corruption.
Similarly, the Special Court fully acquitted Director Mon Prasad Aryal, Deputy Director Binod Chandra Shrestha, Directors Dipesh Acharya and Surendra Lal Hada, Deputy Directors Rewati Ram Panth, Sandip Adhikari, Surya Prasad Lamichhane, Achyutananda Mishra, and Bijay Kumar Rai Yadav, along with Assistant Directors Pratiksha Paudel and Nirajan Koirala.
The brief verdict of the court mentions that Anandraj Khanal, Dipesh Acharya, Surendra Lal Hada, Min Prasad Aryal, Achyutananda Mishra, Rewati Ram Panth, Sandip Adhikari, Binod Chandra Shrestha, Surya Prasad Lamichhane, Pratiksha Paudel, Bijay Kumar Rai Yadav, and Nirajan Koirala performed their duties in accordance with the decisions made by higher officials while being in designated positions within the NTA.
It was highlighted that they did not make any decisions in their personal capacity but rather analyzed the facts within the assigned structure and committees, providing opinions and reports in accordance with the law. Since they did not have a decisive role in the selection of consultants during the MDMS procurement process, the Special Court found no grounds to hold them accountable for any wrongdoing.
