Parliament on Sunday passed the ‘Anti Corruption Commission (Amendment) Bill 2013’, inserting a provision for taking prior government approval to initiate corruption case against any public servant.
In the original law, the Commission was empowered to give prior approval in filing such a case.
Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury (Minister in-charge on Cabinet Division in the Parliament) moved the Bill that was passed by voice vote.
The amendment proposed a new provision in the section 32 of the ACC Act 2004 under which the commission must follow the Rule 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against a judge, magistrate or a civil servant.
According to the Rule 197 of the CrPC, when any person who is a judge within the meaning of section 19 of the Penal Code, or when any magistrate, or when any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the prior government sanction.
As per the objective of the Bill, the amendment will bring about transparency, accountability and acceptability to all. It says any court will not entertain any corruption related case that does not have the ACC approval.
It also extended the tenure of the ACC chairman from four years to five years.
The Bill also says the government organisations are bound to provide information to the ACC as per its requirement, failing of which the ACC could take action against them.
The Bill, placed in parliament on February 28, 2011, proposed submission of documents of the approval while filing any case in connection with corruption.
According to the amendment, crimes relating to corruption would be classified in three categories — cognisable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.
It also said the Commission will not conduct any inquiry against its own people rather it would place it before police or any other government organisation.
The amendment proposed safeguarding information providers keeping their names secret as well as punishment to those for furnishing any false information, ranging jail terms from 2-5 years.
The Bill said the inquiry official will get 120 working days to complete his task. If the official fails to do so another 60 working days be extended.
In case of further failure, the assigned officer will be removed from the duty where another officer will be replaced who will finish his task in 90 working days.
A provision has been introduced to take departmental action against the failed official.
Source: UNBConnect