12. Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997 – Whether in the face of evidence led, has it been proved that appellant (former minister) obtained for himself or for any other person pecuniary advantage or favour through corrupt dishonest, improper or illegal means to warrant conviction U/S. 3(1)(d) of the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1997 – Held: There was nothing in evidence to show that appointees belonged to appellant’s constituency; that any one of them was his close relative or close associate; that recommendees of any political party were accommodated or any of his close associates derived any pecuniary advantage or benefit from appointments so made – Prosecution was to prove every element of charge i.e. that those appointments were made through ‘corrupt’, dishonest, improper or illegal means