Magistracy to try cheating or forgery

The proposed shift in the jurisdiction of trial of criminal cases like cheating and forgery from the Anti-Corruption Commission to the courts of judicial magistrates is more a compulsion than a policy change. To be effected under an amended law the draft of which was approved by the Cabinet on Monday, the move has been necessitated by the piling up of such cases and the ACC's limited staff and resources to deal with those. Consequent upon the passage of the amendment in parliament, the ACC will be relieved of its current workload. It will then be able to concentrate on other important and pressing cases. However, in case of fraudulent cases involving government employees, officials and bankers, the anti-corruption body will still retain the responsibility of carrying out investigation and referring cases for trial to the court.
There is no denying that at the time of the ACC was set up, it generated tremendous hope among the public about its role in helping establish the rule of law. All because such an anti-graft watchdog body in other countries have played a very crucial role in the fight against corruption. As a constitutionally   independent body, it is armed with enough power to defy the stereotyped legal process that may require a long period whereby justice is denied. It is just such a body that enhances its reputation by staying neutral and above all kinds of capitulation to powerful quarters. Its sanctity is respected even by the government in its own interest. Sadly, the ACC apparently failed to play its due role for various reasons. Second, its wings were subsequently clipped.
An ACC without the required power has to manoeuvre within its own cocoon. On that count the shift of the jurisdiction to the magistracy will not hurt much. At least the backlog of the cases concerned is not expected to mount in the magistrates' courts. However, magisterial dispensation of justice is not without controversies of undue compromises. People wielding money power and influence can either overwhelm some of the magistrates or buy them by playing foul if necessary. There is a need for safeguarding the magisterial institution.
In case of petty cheating and forgery cases, though, the stake is not very big but there are big players who could not care less if their cases are heard in a magistrate's court. Also the magistrates will have to rely on the investigation by the police. The problem here is that the men in uniform have otherwise an ill reputation of instituting cases in so weak a manner that even a murderer or a hardened criminal can walk out of the prison. The judge is helpless in such cases. Awarding due punishment is beyond the legal parameter because of the allegedly motivated framing of the cases. These are legal lacunas that have to be addressed first if the trial held for the offence of cheating and forgery under magistracy is to be made meaningful.