LAHORE: The Punjab prosecution department has found anomalies in the working of the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), terming them the root cause of low court convictions which were just 63 last year all over the province.

According to sources on Sunday, the prosecution has found the faults and the low conviction in a study conducted to assess the ACE working from Jan 1 to Nov 30, 2013.

The ACE officials say various steps are being taken to improve the working of the establishment including notification of its fresh rules.

It is also being considered to have the establishment declared a full-fledged independent department. According to the study, there were only 63 convictions by 10 anti-corruption courts in Punjab during the selected period.

The acquittals on merit were 157 and because of resiling of witnesses 787. As many as 117 cases were filed (could not be tried), and 3,778 cases were pending in courts.

The report says that major cause of low conviction is defective investigation. ACE cases are generally based on documentary evidence which is not properly collected. Investigation is not conducted in respect of all aspects of cases and corrupt practice or criminal misconduct is not established through evidence.

There is no permanent investigation staff. Those assigned the job, belong to the other Punjab government departments like police officials or section officers and work in the ACE on deputation for some period. They lack the skill to investigate and the required interest.

The investigation officers are not fully aware of the related laws and their applicability. This renders them unable to collect evidence as per the laws, ultimately benefiting the accused in courts.

The ACE has no permanent head. Those appointed against the post belong to police or civil administration and they normally consider the job less attractive as against other posts in their own services.

The report says witnesses do resile in majority cases and no action is taken against them under the law. Even public servants cited as witnesses resile from their statements recorded during investigations before the ACE.

They can be booked under Sections 182, 193 and 213 of the PPC for doing so but no action is taken. In majority cases, the ACE officials forget about pursuing the cases and keeping witnesses intact after submitting the cases to courts.

There is a lack of coordination between investigation officers and prosecutors which disallows proper scrutiny of cases before their submission to the courts. The study points out some flaws in the anti-corruption laws which it says are benefiting the accused.

It says cases are registered against government servants for not exercising their authority to prevent loss to the government. But FIRs cannot be registered against them solely on this ground without evidence of misappropriation which leads to acquittal of the accused.

To explain, the report says that NAB laws allow conviction of a government official who was in-charge of a project but who did not stop corruption by a contractor. But the anti-corruption laws allow conviction only if there is an evidence of misappropriation by the government official.

The report says anti-corruption cases are consigned (closed) when the accused does not appear before the court or does not join investigation and absconds himself. This happens with the alleged connivance of the ACE staff, or their lack of interest or professional ability.

And in many cases even the government servants who continue to serve in their departments, are not arrested.

Non-appearance of witnesses in courts is another reason for the closure of cases. And no responsibility is fixed on those responsible for ensuring their appearance.

In some instances, cases are consigned to record and adjourned sine die on the ground that civil litigation is pending in civil courts regarding the same documents which are also subject matter of the anti-corruption case.