AJK Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001

  1. Section 2 — commencement & effect of — u/s 2(3) the offences committed after 1st January, 1985 shall be triable under the Act — Held:  the offences committed prior to 1st January, 1985, the date from which the Ehtesab Bureau Act was mad applicable don’t fall in the ambit of Ehtesab Bureau. Kh. Zia Ahmed v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2015 SCR 681 (D)
  2. Section 3(A) — applicability on the bank employees — the banks are national institutions and their employees come within the purview of ‘holder of public office’. If for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the bank employees do not come within the definition of ‘holder of public office’ as observed by the learned High Court that the Council has not adapted the definition of the public office holder, even then there cases come within the purview of section 3(A) of the Ehtesab Act, 2001. As this section clearly speaks that this law is applicable to ‘all the persons in Azad Jammu and Kashmir’ irrespective of the fact that they are holder of public office or not. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (I)
  3. Sections 3 & 4 — domain of — there is no ambiguity in the language used in the section as four different categories of persons come within the domain of the Ehtesab Act, 2001. The words “all persons in Azad Jammu and Kashmir” by themselves show that apart from any other person whether holding the public office or not, a person in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir, if indulged in the corruption, corrupt practices, misuse/abuse of power, misappropriation of property, kickbacks, commissions and for matters connected and ancillary or incidental thereto, is liable to be dealt with under the Ehtesab Act, 2001. Secondly; the words “holder of the public office” are also of very much importance.  Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (G)
  4. Section 3 & 4 — The words “an office or post in service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or any post or any service in connection with the affairs of the State, or of a local council constituted under any State law relating to the constitution of local councils, or in the management of corporations, banks, financial institutions” mentioned in the above referred provision clearly show that the bank employees also come within the domain of Ehtesab Courts, if they are involved in corruption or corrupt practices. Whereas, the next category shows that not only the holder of public office but if any person who facilitates or abets or induces in the commission of offence also comes within the parameters of section 3 of the Act, 2001. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin 2015 SCR 408 (H)
  5. Section 5 — Any order under Act, passed by the Chairman is deemed to be the order of the Ehtesab Bureau.  Sardar M. Razzaq  v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR  1156 (A)
  6. Sections 5, 6 & 32 — Ehtesab Bureau — Powers of appointment — the powers for appointment against the posts of officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau are exercise-able by the Ehtesab Bureau and vest in the Chairman who shall exercise the same and may delegate the same to any of the officers. Sardar M. Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR 1156 (B)
  7. S. 7 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S.42. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K through its Chief Secretary, New Secretariat, Muzaffarabad and another v. Haji M. Ashraf, Deputy Chairman, AJK Ehtesab Bureau, Muzaffarabad 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 156
  8. Section 10 — u/s 10 (1) (D) — if a holder of public office by corrupt, dishonest or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse and/or  dependents or any other person, any property or valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage, he is said to commit or have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices. Kh. Zia Ah. v. Ehtesab Bureau 2015 SCR 681 (A)
  9. Section 20 — Applicability of provisions of criminal procedure code in criminal references filed in Ehtesab Court — the proceedings in criminal references filed in the Ehtesab Court — The proceedings in criminal references filed by Ehtesab Bureau in the Ehtesab Court are conducting according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. — Unless expressly provided by the Ehtesab Bureau Act in all other matters the provisions of criminal procedure code are applicable to the criminal cases initiated under Ehtesab Bureau Act. Ehtesab Bureau v. Rashid Ahmed Katal & 4 others 2011 SCR 512 (A & B)
  10. Sections 20 & 21(4) — The AJ&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 — scheduled offences under Ehtesab Burreau Act, 2001 or the AJ&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 — authority with the powers to transfer the case for investigation — Held: the Deputy Inspector General of Police has no power to transfer any case which falls in the scheduled offences under Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 or Act, 1950. The Act, 1950 is also included in the II schedule provided in Act, 2001 and the Ehtesab Bureau in the offences falling in Act, 1950 can investigate and try the same. Further held: the only authority with the powers to transfer the case for investigation is the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau under section 20 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. Muhammad Liaqat Sulehira v. S.H.O. City M,abad & 6 others 2016 SCR 390 (B) 2012 YLR 2207 rel.
  11. Section 21 — Court shall not take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a reference made by the Chairman or an officer of the Ehtesab Bureau duly authorized by him — A reference shall be initiated by the Ehtesab Bureau on a reference received from the Government; or receipt of a complaint against a person. M. Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (M) 
  12. ——Section 21 (4) —Powers and authority of the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau —Normally, Ehtesab Bureau is required to investigate  the  offences  regarding  corruption,  as  mentioned  in schedule of the Act,        —but the Chairman EhtesabBurerau is empowered to get investigation done by any other agency—the sole responsibility for inquiry into an investigation of the offence alleged to have been committed rests on the Ehtesab Bureau to the exclusion of any other agency or authority unless any such agency or authority is required to do so by the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau as is envisaged under section 21(4) of Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. Meaning thereby, that the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau if deems it proper to get the investigation of an offence by any other agency or authority regarding schedule offences he may do so under his supervision. This practice is not prevailing at present, however, the statutory provision authorizes the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau to adopt such procedure if the same is adopted the load of work in the department of Ehtesab Bureau may be decreased. Tariq Riaz Mughal vs State & others 2018 SCR 184 (C)
  13. —Section 21(4), AJK Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001   two separate inquires on same allegations were being conducted against the petitioner before two different forums   against law and natural justice— Held: under section 21(4) the Ehtesab Bureau has been authorized to investigate the matter by exclusion of any other agency or authority or by such agency or authority under the supervision of the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau. Further Held: two parallel inquires on the same subject-matter are pending before two different forums, i.e., Anti-Corruption Establishment and the Ehtesab Bureau which not only effect the investigation rather result into multiple legal complexities and is also against the law and norms of natural justice—Anti-Corruption Authority was directed to refer the matter to the Ehtesab Bureau. Tariq Pervaiz v. The State & others 2022 SCR 1625 (A)
  14.  —Section 21(6) —amendment—effect of— complaint instituted in 2004— amended sub-Section (6) has been given effect from 13.06.2009— same cannot be read retrospectively. Dilshad Kausar Versus Ehtesab Bureau & 2 others  2021 SCR 511 (A) 2011 SCR 390 rel.
  15. Grounds of arrest served after a considerable delay — Effect of — The words ‘‘as soon as may be’’ used in sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, oblige the Ehtesab Bureau to inform the arrested persons of the grounds of arrest — ‘‘As soon as may be’’ do not mean or imply immediately or instantly at the time of arrest —- It would definitely mean instantly or immediately otherwise the purpose would be defeated — But when a further process is required in a particular matter, the term ‘may’ mean otherwise — It denotes a reasonable time or whenever reasonably and conveniently possible with due diligence but without any unreasonable delay — It definitely means as early as is reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case, of course circumstances differ from case to case. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others  v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (A)  AIR 1950 Pat 228, PLD 1982 AJK 36, PLD 1977 Kar. 523, PLD 1967 Pesh. 195 rel.
  16. Section 32 & section 4, clause (qq) (amended) — The Ehtesab Bureau is an important institution of the State — Under section 32 all the appointments in the Ehtesab Bureau have to be made in a prescribed manner.— under section 4 clause (qq) prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act — It is the duty of the Government to provide a mode for appointment of the officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau while framing the Rules — it creates hardships for the appointment of officers and staff — Desired that Government shall frame the Rules under section 32 of Act, forthwith. Sardar M. Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR  1156 (P)
  17.  Section 40 — Chairman not empowered to direct CP or DCP for filling appeals — Government has authority to grant sanction — before amendment in section 40 of Ehtesab Bureau Act, the Chairman was empowered to direct the Chief prosecutor or Deputy Chief Prosecutor for filing appeal before the High Court — After amendment vide (Act V of 2010), this power has been withdrawn. Held: On behalf of the State the Government has the authority to grant sanction for filing of appeals. Ehtesab Bureau v. Rashid Ahmed Katal & 4 others 2011 SCR 512 (H & I)
  18. Section 42 — unamended — Rules making powers — The President may make the Rules in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court — The authority which is vested with the powers to make the Rules, may frame the Rules consistent with the Act. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR  1156 (E)
  19. Section 42 — unamended — AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Term & Service) Rules, 2009 — The powers to make Rules under section 42 (original) vested in the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice High Court—Through amendment the President was empowered to frame Rules without the consultation of the Chief Justice on 11.6. 2008. This power remained vested in the President up to 7.6. 2009. Rules were framed 22.6. 2009. Held: on the said date, the Rules can only be framed by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice. The Rules were not made according to the statutory provisions, have no legal force. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v. Chairman Ehtesab Bureau & others 2015 SCR  1156 (L)
  20. Section 47 read with Rules of Business, 1985 — Ehtesab Bureau a special institution — Government is the authority to grant sanction for filing appeals — Under section 47 for the purpose of Act and Rules of Business, 1985, the Ehtesab Bureau is a special institution of Law, Justice, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department — Under schedule 1 of Rules of Business, at Serial No.14 the Ehtesab Bureau is mentioned as special institution. Ehtesab Bureau v. Rashid Ahmed Katal & 4 others 2011 SCR 512 (G)
  21. Preamble — objects — eradication of corruption — detection — investigation — prosecution — speedy disposal of the cases of corruption — the paramount object of enacting the Act, 2001 is only to eradicate the corruption and corrupt practices and make accountable all those persons who are accused of such practices to provide for effective measures for detection, investigation, prosecution and speedy disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practices, misuse or abuse of power or authority,  misappropriation of property, taking of kickbacks, commissions; recovery of State money and other assets from those persons who have misappropriated or removed such money or assets through corruption or corrupt practices. Ehtesab Bureau v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (A)
  22. Scope of — the scope of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001,  is much wider than any other law dealing with the cases of corruption. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (B)
  23. Noble objective of — confidence of the State Subjects — The noble objective as reflected in the Preamble of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, is to exercise powers to inspire confidence of the State-Subjects in the public institutions. The exercise of powers must be above the board and transparent. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (D)
  24. Object of — expeditious disposal — the preamble of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, further reflects that object of this enactment is the expeditious disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practices, misuse and abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of property, taking kickbacks, commissions and for matters connected therewith and to avoid procedural delays and technicalities. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (E)
  25. The Ehtesab Bureau — mandate of — the Ehtesab Bureau is a national institution which has a great mandate as is highlighted in Preamble of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. Ehtesab Bureau v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (F)
  26. Application of — banks’ employees — private persons — the bank employees who are involved in the corruption, corrupt practices and misuse of authority are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, and can safely be tried by the Ehtesab Courts which have been specifically established to eradicate corruption and corrupt practices. The scope of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 is much wider than any other law which deals with the cases of corruption and even a private person who is found to be involved in such like practice with the connivance of the persons of all the categories mentioned in section 3 of the Etesab Bureau Act, 2001 can also be tried under this Act. — Bank employees — Ehtesab Bureau — jurisdiction of — the accused-respondents being the Bank Employees securely fall in the term ‘any person’ and are liable to be investigated and inquired into by the Ehtesab Bureau. Ehtesab Bureau  v. Abid Hussin & 3 others 2015 SCR 408 (M)
  27. Ehtesab Burerau — jurisdiction of — Ehtesab Burerau has jurisdiction in the cases of persons falling in a special law. Kh. Zia Ahmed v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2015 SCR 681 (B)
  28. Ehtesab Bureau — Scope & function — Director Admin, Ehtesb Bureau directed the Secretary to the Prime Minister that a reference be filed against the Secretary Works — Held: The Ehtesab Bureau has no such power or jurisdiction to direct the Secretary to the Prime Minister that Government shall send a reference to the Ehtesab Bureau for inquiry against a civil servant — Further held: The Ehtesab Bureau can inquire into the matter if a reference is sent by the Government or an application is received. M. Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. 2015 SCR 1133 (N) Writ — against termination order — necessary party — The Ehtesab Bureau is not a juristic person. It was not necessary to array the Ehtesab Bureau as party in the line of the respondents — Held: Chairman Ehtesab Bureau is a necessary party. The Ehtesab Bureau is not a necessary party. Sardar Muhammad Razzaq v.  Chairman Ehtesab Bureau   & others 2015 SCR 1156 (D)  PLJ 2009 SC AJ&K 150 & 2004 SCR 274  ref.
  29. —writ—preamble—objects of the Act—speedy disposal of cases—involving corruption—corrupt practices etc.— recovery of outstanding amounts—payable to banks, institutions, Government and others agencies— recovery of State money and other assets—from the defaulters and persons who misappropriated and removed such money and assets—After going through the preamble of Act, 2001, it appears that the Ehtesab Bureau apart from speedy disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practise etc. was to be set up so as for recovery of outstanding amount from those persons who have committed default in the repayment of amounts to banks, institutions, Government and other agencies and the recovery of state money and other assets from those persons who have misappropriated and removed such money and assets through corrupt practices and misuse of power and/or authority·Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR  1351 (A)
  30.  —writ—special law—use of same in oppressive manner—to be tested—on touchstone of—fundamental constitutional rights—legal duty of Courts—to defend and enforce— the fundamental rights of people—and constitutional guarantees— It is a special law and use of the same in oppressive manner must be tested on the touchstone of fundamental right of a person as guaranteed under the constitution. The Courts are under legal duty to defend, preserve and enforce the rights of people and their fundamental constitutional guarantees. Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1351 (B)
  31. — writ—preamble—noble objective of State Subject—exercise of powers—to inspire confidence—in public institutions—Noble objective as reflected in the preamble of Act, 2001 is to exercise powers to inspire confidence of the State- Subjects in the public institutions. Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1351 (C)
  32. —writ— adaptation by AJ&K Kashmir Council—vide AJ&K Council (Adaptation and Extension) Act, 2005–It may be stated that the Ehtesab Bureau Act(, adapted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council vide Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau (Adaptation and Extension Act), 2005, subsection (3) of section 1 of Adaptation Act, 2005. Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1351 (D)
  33. — writ—applicable on persons serving—in the departments—falling under administrative control of AJ&K Council— Argument: that the appellant an employee of AJ&K Council—-therefore, Ehtesab Bureau has no authority to proceed against him—Held: argument has no force—AJ&K Council subsection (3) of section 1 of Adaptation Act, 2005, clearly provides that the Act is applicable to the persons serving in the departments under the administrative control of AJ&K Council, The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was an employee of the AJ&K. council, therefore, the Ehtesab Bureau has no authority to initiate any proceeding against the appellant, has no force. Raja M. Ibrahim Khan v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1351 (E)
error: Content is protected !!