The two of the four appellants, former Drakteng Gup Tenzin and former land surveyor Narayan Dangal involved in the Trongsa land case presented their grounds of appeal to the Supreme court yesterday. Former Trongsa Dzongda Lhab Dorji and his wife Karma Tshethrim Dema presented their grounds of appeal during the preliminary hearing on December 28, 2021.
The lawyer of former Drakteng Gup Tenzin and surveyor Narayan Dangal presented to the court that the Anti-Corruption Commission does not have the right to prosecute a case. He said that although the constitution does not give ACC the power to prosecute, the ACC Act 2011 allows the commission to prosecute under certain circumstances. As per the ACC Act, the commission may carry out its own prosecution of a person charged with an offence under the Act or take over the prosecution process from the Office of Attorney General when the case is delayed without a valid reason, manipulated, or hampered by interference. However, he said the case does not fulfil any of the criteria for the commission to carry out the prosecution.
The former Gup Tenzin’s second ground for the appeal was that he is not guilty of all charges. He claimed that the appellant did not forge any documents. He said that signing as a witness on the sale deed agreement between Karma Tshethrim Dema and Yangchen is not a forgery. He said Karma Tshethrim Dema bought the land with a proper sale deed. The former Gup Tenzin was charged for forgery and deceptive practice. The high court sentenced him to a prison term of six years.
The lawyer of Narayan Dangal submitted that Narayan did not aid and abet forgery. The high court sentenced Narayan to 18 months in prison for aiding and abetting forgery and official misconduct in August last year.
As per ACC’s allegation, Narayan made no site visit, therefore has not submitted a report to NLC. However, the lawyer said the Narayan and the Land Record Officer, late Sangay Yonten, conducted a due verification of Yangchen’s Land after the Department of Survey and Land Record asked for clarification relating to the land and submitted the report to the National Land Commission.
The lawyer argues that the Department of Survey and Land Record’s Director’s note-sheet to Survey General, clearly reflects that the appellant submitted both the report and the map to commission and they accordingly made thram changes. The lawyer claims that the ACC who has all the documents and files is now concealing that report.
The lawyer also denies the allegation of regularising the GY plot or Satheb in the name of Karma Tshetrim Dema during the National Cadastral Re-Survey Program or NCRP. He said, during the Cadastral Re-Survey, the appellant was not in Trongsa but in Punakha.
The next hearing will be conducted towards the end of this month.
Kinley Dem / Sangay Chezom
