Summary: (a) Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001—Section 21(6) first proviso—Statutory abatement of delayed inquiries—Mandatory nature—Where inquiry/investigation is not concluded within one year of complaint receipt, proceedings abate by operation of law and cannot be revived to found a reference; trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction thereafter is ultra vires the Act. (b) Accountability proceedings—Limitation and promptitude—Object—The one-year bar embodies legislative policy against stale and potentially mala fide prosecutions; courts must enforce it strictly to protect due process and finality. (c) Jurisdiction—Reference filed after statutory abatement—Effect—Any subsequent cognizance by the Ehtesab Court on a time-barred inquiry/reference is without lawful authority; conviction so recorded is vitiated. (d) Allotment dispute (MDA)—Proper forum and burden—Where the Mirpur Development Authority is the competent forum for allotment questions, bypassing that mechanism and invoking criminal accountability without first establishing a civil/administrative entitlement is impermissible—Complainant must produce conclusive documentary proof of allotment; mere similarity of name/parentage is insufficient. (e) Criminal trial—Standard of proof—Benefit of doubt—Where prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged substitution/forgery of the original application or illicit re-registration, acquittal must follow; prolonged unexplained delay in initiating inquiry further undermines the case. (f) Appellate interference with acquittal—Principles—An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; interference lies only where findings are perverse, capricious, or against settled principles—Absent strong, cogent reasons, the acquittal is not to be disturbed. Followed: Mushtaq Ahmed v. Sikandar Khan (2015 SCR 1520); Mst. Mehmoona Kousar v. Muhammad Khalil (2023 SCR 921). (g) Result—Appeal dismissed—High Court judgment dated 14-06-2024 acquitting respondents upheld in toto; convictions recorded by Ehtesab Court on 28-02-2023 set aside for want of jurisdiction and evidentiary insufficiency. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained.

Summary: (a) Ehtesab Bureau—Appointment of Chairman; constitutional and institutional safeguards ----Azad Jammu & Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (EBA), S. 6 (as amended 2020); Public Offices—Independence and integrity of anti-corruption institutions—Interpretation of eligibility, suitability and appointment procedure. Resignation of the impugned appointee rendered appeal infructuous, yet Supreme Court examined principles for future appointments to preserve institutional integrity of Ehtesab Bureau—Held, Ehtesab Bureau performs pivotal role in eradicating corruption and ensuring accountability; its Chairman is the cornerstone of the Bureau’s functional and moral authority—Position demands unimpeachable integrity, impartiality, competence, and independence—Integrity is not an accessory but an intrinsic element of qualification—Possession of technical eligibility (e.g., being qualified as Judge or senior civil servant) alone is insufficient without proven honesty and character—Appointment process under current S.6 vests discretion solely in the executive, lacking transparency and bipartisan consultation, hence prone to politicization and conflict of interest—Recommended legislative reforms to align selection process with standards under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, ensuring bipartisan consultation (Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition), independent parliamentary committee oversight, fixed tenure, and secure removal procedure through judicial inquiry—Government directed not to make further appointments of Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable amendments are enacted. (b) Administrative law—Integrity as part of qualification; scope of suitability ----Principles of good governance—Eligibility versus suitability—Integrity, honesty, character, merit, and efficiency deemed integral to qualification for high public offices; mere possession of formal criteria not sufficient—Relied on: Mrs. Shaheen Ashai v. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhary (2014 SCR 1169); Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan (2014 SCR 43); Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132); Tariq Aziz-ud-Din (2010 SCMR 1301); Centre for PIL v. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 1267)—Courts emphasized that institutions enforcing accountability or regulating merit must be led by persons of unquestionable integrity; suitability evaluation must extend beyond academic or technical fitness to moral and ethical probity. (c) Comparative framework—Pakistan NAB model and AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau ----S.6 of EBA contrasted with S.6 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999— NAB appointment procedure entails consultation between Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition and, failing consensus, reference to a bipartisan parliamentary committee ensuring transparency and balance—EBA confers unilateral discretion on Prime Minister’s advice to President—Supreme Court observed that concentration of appointment power in one political executive defeats the very object of accountability and raises issues of conflict of interest—Recommended replication of NAB’s consultative and bipartisan safeguards in AJ&K framework. (d) Perks and privileges—Equivalence to Judge High Court; impermissibility ----Administrative practice; 2016 SCR 206 followed. Grant of pay and privileges equivalent to a High Court Judge to Chairman Ehtesab Bureau held contrary to the spirit of the Constitution—Such parity permissible only for constitutional/judicial offices performing identical functions—Government may devise appropriate package but must refrain from labeling it “perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court.” (e) Public accountability and reform directives ----Governance and institutional independence—Court noted public perception of misuse of Bureau for political ends; urged Government to reform law to ensure apolitical appointments, security of tenure, transparent selection, and rationalization of law-officer cadre to reduce fiscal burden—Cited Azad Govt v. Sardar Muhammad Mukhtar Khan (2016 SCR 206) and Ehtesab Bureau v. Abid Hussain (2015 SCR 408). Disposition: Appeal disposed of in view of respondent’s resignation; observations issued in public interest. Government directed not to appoint any new Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable statutory amendments ensuring transparent, merit-based, and bipartisan process are enacted. Perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court declared impermissible. No order as to costs.