ACC challenges HC verdict on embargo
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) yesterday filed a leave-to-appeal petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court verdict that emphasised formulation of a specific law or rule regarding imposing embargo on corruption suspects or accused leaving the country.
Lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan submitted the petition to the Appellate Division of the SC on behalf of the ACC seeking its order to scrap the HC judgement and observations.
In the petition, the ACC said the commission has special or extraordinary powers to conduct inquiry and investigation into corruption allegations and cases as per the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.
If the commission has to take permission from the court concerned for imposing embargo on corruption suspects and accused from leaving the country, the purpose of the inquiry and investigation in maximum cases will be frustrated, lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan told The Daily Star, citing the leave-to-appeal petition.
He said the ACC does not issue an embargo on anybody's leaving country, it (ACC) only requests the immigration department to restrain corruption suspects or accused on credible information about them.
The HC in its verdict prohibited the ACC to restrain any suspect or accused from leaving the country, but allowed the special judge's court concerned to exercise such powers, which is self-contradictory, Khurshid Alam Khan said.
It cannot be said when the apex court will hold hearing on the petition as the court is running at a limited scale now, the lawyer said.
Following a writ petition, the HC bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Md Mostafizur Rahman on March 16 delivered a verdict observing that a specific law or rule needs to be formulated soon regarding imposing embargo on corruption suspects or accused from leaving the country.
The full text of the HC judgement was released on April 4.
The ACC on March 21 filed the petition with the Appellate Division seeking stay on the HC verdict. The stay petition is pending with the apex court.
Comments