9. Corruption and corrupt practices In respect of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices defined in S. 9(a)(v) and the presumption in law as contained in S. 14(C) of the National Accountability ordinance, 1999 prosecution is initially required to establish the possession of properties or pecuniary resources disproportionate to know sources of income of accused-Once this fact is established by production of evidence or with the admission of accused persons, the onus shifts to the accused to prove the contrary and give satisfactory account of holding/possessing the properties or pecuniary resources, failing which holding/possessing the properties or pecuniary resources, failing which the court shall be legitimately justified in presuming the accused persons to be guilty of offence of corruption and/or corrupt practices and awarding the conviction provided by law-Mere disclosure of a source for acquiring and asset would not be deemed sufficient to discharge the onus laid on an accused under the Ordinance-Source disclosed by the accused should be reasonable, logical, satisfactory and know, meaning thereby that not merely the immediate source should be disclosed but the ultimate source from where the funds emanated shall also be disclosed. 2004 M L D 77 Appreciation of evidence-Accountability Court had convicted accused under S. 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 on allegation that he being Secretary, Board of Revenue, land Utilization Department, got land in question disposed of in favour of its beneficiaries at throwaway price causing colossal loss to public exchequer-Co-accused who were beneficiaries of land in question had requested the Chief Minister for conversion of their leased Barani lands into Agricultural/Residential/Industrial land for a period of 99 years instead of 30 years-Chief Minister allowed the request of co-accused, but on objection of the Finance Department, Chief Minister rejected the said proposal-Accused by concealing relevant paras, in which proposal of disposal of land in question was rejected by the Chief Minister, got land disposed of in favour of the beneficiaries thereof-Accountability Court, in circumstances, had rightly mentioned in its judgment that it was duty of the accused rather his moral duty to pint out the relevant paras. And earlier order of rejection of proposal by Chief Minister, but he had concealed all that which on face of it was mala fide act on the part of accused which act, by itself, was sufficient to constitute an act of corrupt practice by accused-Case against accused was based on documentary evidence and Accountability court had adverted to all points in its judgment and reached at just conclusion that offence under S.9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 punishable under S. 10 thereof had been committed by the accused on sound principles.PLD 2003 Kar. 423 The words ‘corruption’ and ‘corrupt practices’ have not been defined in the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, but the meaning of these words have been described in the dictionary in the following words:- ‘Corruption; An act done with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or Character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others’. ‘Practices’ are succession of acts of a similar kind and ‘corrupt’ means ‘spoiled; tainted; vitiated; depraved; debased; morally degenerate’. Corrupt practices are thus series of depraved/debased/morally degenerate acts. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.