1. 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-Appeal against judgment of Accountability Court being without merits was dismissed. PLD 2003 Kar. 423 Prosecution had failed to prove reasonable case muchless to the satisfaction of the Court-Charges levelled against the accused could not be brought home by the prosecution-No direct or indirect evidence to show that the accused was a corrupt official and he was holding such responsible position by misuse of which, he had amassed huge wealth-Not a single witness had deposed that the accused was a dishonest/corrupt person and was living beyond his means-No evidence was available on record to show such acts or omissions or the powers he exerted, the influence he brought to bear upon someone as to constitute misuse of that authority-Nothing was available on record to prove that accused/co-accused and their mother were holding the properties (mentioned in the charge), vehicles and Bank accounts as Benamidars and that they were ‘dependent’ on the accused-Investigating Officer, in the cross-examination had admitted to the extent that there was not direct evidence because it was a white collar crime and he had just collected evidence for drawing conclusion-Trial Court had discarded the entire evidence produced by the accused on wrong premises-Documents which were not admissible were relied upon and those documents which favoured the accused were conveniently ignored-Trial Court had based conviction on presumptions only without cogent, convincing and adequate evidence on record, which was lacking in the case and failed to appreciate properly the law applicable to the case and interpretation of Supreme Court Judgment was squeezed and judgments of superior Courts, were not kept in view-Accused on the other hand had given satisfactory explanation about sources of their income and adduced sufficient documentary and oral evidence in their support-Appeal against conviction by the Trial Court was accepted by High Court in circumstances and accused was acquitted