The plaintiff alleged that she boarded a bus with Man Kumari on assurances they were travelling to Butwal, Nepal, when in fact two of the defendants planned to take her to India to sell her. The bus tickets were purchased by another individual, so the plaintiff did not know they had been purchased. The defendants’ intentions were discovered by a police officer during a police check, and the plaintiff then made a statement to the investigating officer.
Nepal
India1st Instance:
Chitwan District Court, annulment of the plaintiff’s claims.
2nd Instance:
Hetauda Appellate Court, upheld decision of district court.
The Chitwan District Court annulled the lawsuit, basing its decision on Clause 4(2) of the Human Trafficking (Control) Act, 2043 BS, which states that the person has to be taken to a foreign land with the objective of trafficking in humans. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendants did not reach India but were still in Nepal when they were stopped by the police.
The Chitwan District Court annulled the lawsuit, basing its decision on Clause 4(2) of the Human Trafficking (Control) Act, 2043 BS, which states that the person has to be taken to a foreign land with the objective of trafficking in humans. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendants did not reach India but were still in Nepal when they were stopped by the police.
The Chitwan District Court annulled the lawsuit, basing its decision on Clause 4(2) of the Human Trafficking (Control) Act, 2043 BS, which states that the person has to be taken to a foreign land with the objective of trafficking in humans. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendants did not reach India but were still in Nepal when they were stopped by the police.
The Chitwan District Court annulled the lawsuit, basing its decision on Clause 4(2) of the Human Trafficking (Control) Act, 2043 BS, which states that the person has to be taken to a foreign land with the objective of trafficking in humans. In the instant case, the plaintiff and defendants did not reach India but were still in Nepal when they were stopped by the police.
Clause 4, Human Trafficking (Control) Act—taking a person to a foreign land with the intent to traffic in humans
2nd instance:
The Hetauda Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
3rd instance:
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts. It held that requiring the individual to reach foreign territory in order to establish the commission of a crime is “contrary to the spirit” of the Act. However, when looking at the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that there was not a sufficient complaint against the defendants, but that they had been arrested on mere suspicion.
Clause 4, Human Trafficking (Control) Act—taking a person to a foreign land with the intent to traffic in humans
2nd instance:
The Hetauda Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
3rd instance:
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts. It held that requiring the individual to reach foreign territory in order to establish the commission of a crime is “contrary to the spirit” of the Act. However, when looking at the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that there was not a sufficient complaint against the defendants, but that they had been arrested on mere suspicion.
Clause 4, Human Trafficking (Control) Act—taking a person to a foreign land with the intent to traffic in humans
2nd instance:
The Hetauda Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
3rd instance:
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts. It held that requiring the individual to reach foreign territory in order to establish the commission of a crime is “contrary to the spirit” of the Act. However, when looking at the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that there was not a sufficient complaint against the defendants, but that they had been arrested on mere suspicion.
Clause 4, Human Trafficking (Control) Act—taking a person to a foreign land with the intent to traffic in humans
2nd instance:
The Hetauda Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.
3rd instance:
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts. It held that requiring the individual to reach foreign territory in order to establish the commission of a crime is “contrary to the spirit” of the Act. However, when looking at the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that there was not a sufficient complaint against the defendants, but that they had been arrested on mere suspicion.
Supreme Court, Division Bench
His Majesty’s Government on the FIR of UTM v. Gopal Prasad Dahal, et al, Crim. Case No. 1610, 2051 BS, S. Ct. Nepal.
This case is important as it interpreted the Human Trafficking (Control) Act’s provision on trafficking to a foreign country to apply even if the trafficked individual does not reach the foreign country because the individuals were stopped while still in Nepal. In the 2007 version of the act, clause 4(2) includes “within Nepal.”