Criminal Liability For Obstruction Of Justice By Officials
1. Legal Concept: Obstruction of Justice by Officials in Nepal
Under Nepal’s Penal Code, 2017, obstruction of justice occurs when a public official abuses authority, manipulates evidence, influences investigations, or obstructs court proceedings.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 96, Nepal Penal Code (2017) – Misuse of public authority.
Section 108 – Obstruction of official duties or investigations.
Section 111 – Tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Corruption Prevention Act (2002) – Abuse of position for obstructing justice or investigations.
Constitution of Nepal (2015) – Article 49 and 50 impose duties on officials to uphold law and justice; violation implies personal accountability.
Case 1: Government v. Superintendent of Police R.K. (Kathmandu, 2018)
Facts:
A police superintendent was accused of suppressing an investigation into a high-profile fraud case involving local businessmen.
He intentionally delayed the arrest warrant and concealed evidence.
Legal Issue:
Whether delaying an investigation and suppressing evidence constitutes obstruction of justice under the Penal Code and Corruption Prevention Act.
Outcome:
The Special Court found the officer guilty of abuse of authority and obstruction of justice.
He was sentenced to five years in prison and permanently dismissed from service.
Significance:
Established that even non-judicial officials can be held criminally liable for obstructing justice.
Highlighted that intentional delays or concealment of evidence amount to obstruction.
Case 2: District Attorney v. Investigation Officer (Lalitpur, 2019)
Facts:
A government investigator intentionally leaked witness statements to the defense in a corruption case, undermining the prosecution.
The leak resulted in witnesses retracting their testimonies.
Legal Issue:
Whether leaking sensitive documents constitutes obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
The officer was convicted under Section 111 (tampering with evidence) and Section 96 (abuse of authority).
Sentenced to three years imprisonment and fined.
Significance:
Demonstrated that official misconduct during prosecution or pre-trial constitutes criminal obstruction.
Reinforced confidentiality duties of investigators and prosecutors.
Case 3: Nepal Government v. Court Registrar (Biratnagar, 2020)
Facts:
A court registrar intentionally delayed the registration of an appeal petition to favor one party in a civil-criminal hybrid case.
The appeal was later found to have been altered.
Legal Issue:
Whether manipulation of court documents by a registrar amounts to obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
The High Court found him guilty of interference in judicial process under the Penal Code and Corruption Prevention Act.
He was sentenced to six years imprisonment and dismissal from service.
Significance:
Affirmed that administrative officials in courts can be prosecuted for obstructing justice.
Emphasized transparency and integrity in judicial record-keeping.
Case 4: Government v. Assistant Chief District Officer (ACDO) K.C. (Banke, 2021)
Facts:
A local administrative officer was found guilty of stopping a police investigation into a human trafficking case by exerting political influence.
He threatened subordinate officers and instructed them not to register the FIR.
Legal Issue:
Whether using administrative power to prevent investigation qualifies as obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
The Special Court convicted the ACDO under Sections 96 and 108.
Sentenced to seven years imprisonment and stripped of public office.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that political or administrative interference in justice delivery is punishable.
Expanded the definition of obstruction beyond judicial institutions to administrative ones.
Case 5: Nepal v. Police Inspector and Public Prosecutor (Kathmandu, 2022)
Facts:
A police inspector and a public prosecutor colluded to manipulate forensic evidence in a murder case to favor an influential suspect.
They delayed the forensic submission and altered chain-of-custody records.
Legal Issue:
Whether alteration of forensic evidence constitutes obstruction of justice or corruption.
Outcome:
Both were convicted under Section 111 (tampering with evidence) and Corruption Prevention Act.
Sentenced to eight years imprisonment and disqualified from holding public office.
Significance:
Established that tampering with forensic or digital evidence is a form of obstruction.
Recognized forensic integrity as part of justice administration.
Case 6: Nepal v. Customs Officer (Birgunj, 2023)
Facts:
A customs officer obstructed a smuggling investigation by destroying import records and hiding key evidence implicating high-ranking officials.
Legal Issue:
Whether destruction of official records to protect other officials amounts to obstruction.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 108 of the Penal Code and the Corruption Prevention Act.
Sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined the amount of economic loss caused.
Significance:
Clarified that destruction or concealment of documents constitutes obstruction of justice.
Reinforced accountability for record-keeping and transparency in public administration.
Case 7: Government v. Public Service Officer (Lalitpur, 2024)
Facts:
A senior government officer ordered subordinates to falsify a departmental inquiry report that was being used in a criminal trial.
The falsified report helped an accused avoid prosecution for embezzlement.
Legal Issue:
Can falsifying an internal administrative report that affects a criminal case amount to obstruction of justice?
Outcome:
Convicted under Sections 96, 108, and 111 of the Penal Code.
Received six years imprisonment and removal from office.
Significance:
Broadened the concept of obstruction to include internal administrative manipulation that influences judicial outcomes.
Case 8: Nepal Government v. Judicial Officer (2025)
Facts:
A judicial officer accepted a bribe to issue an interim stay order that blocked an ongoing criminal investigation.
The stay order was later found to have been issued unlawfully.
Legal Issue:
Whether misuse of judicial authority to halt investigations constitutes obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
The Judicial Council suspended the officer, and the Special Court convicted him under the Corruption Prevention Act and Penal Code Section 96.
Sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
Significance:
Landmark case showing that even judicial officials are not immune from prosecution.
Strengthened judicial integrity standards and accountability.
Key Legal and Evidentiary Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Abuse of Position | Any misuse of authority by officials to block investigations or alter outcomes is criminal. |
| Intent to Influence | Proof of intent to interfere with justice is essential, though circumstantial evidence can suffice. |
| Tampering with Evidence | Altering, concealing, or destroying documents or witness testimony constitutes obstruction. |
| Official Liability | All categories—police, administrative, and judicial officials—can be prosecuted. |
| Independent Oversight | Courts emphasize the role of oversight bodies like CIAA (Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority) in prosecuting such cases. |
Conclusion
The above cases show that Nepal’s judiciary has developed a strong stance against officials who obstruct justice, recognizing such acts as direct threats to rule of law and good governance.
Key Takeaways
Obstruction is not limited to courts — it includes administrative interference, police misconduct, and manipulation of evidence.
Officials at all levels, including police, prosecutors, and judges, can be criminally liable.
Intent, misuse of authority, and impact on justice are the main elements considered by courts.
Sentences are severe, often involving imprisonment, dismissal, and fines.
Nepal’s case law reflects a clear judicial trend: no official is above the law, and obstruction of justice—whether through corruption, interference, or evidence manipulation.
RELATED Blog
comments