' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 11-3-2003, whereby the interim bail obtained by the respondent was confirmed.
2. The allegation against the respondent is that an amount of Rs.18,00,000 was reserved for the development of Sector D-4 whose contract was awarded to one Muhammad Niaz. The respondent enhanced the amount of contract from Rs.18,00,000 to Rs.41,00,000 without lawful authority and also paid this amount to the contractor without the approval of PC-1 in exercise of colourable jurisdiction for personal gain. The Ehtesab Bureau probed the matter through its agency and after satisfying itself issued a warrant of arrest against the respondent for offences under section 409/34, A.P.C., 4 Official Misdemeanor Act, 1948, 6(5) Public Office Misconduct Ordinance, 1965, 4 of the Ehtesab Commission Act, 1997 and section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. The respondent apprehending his arrest applied for his pre-arrest bail before the High Court at Mirpur on 28-11- 2002. He was admitted to interim bail by the High Court on the same date. However, the bail confirming order was recorded on 11-3-2003, through the judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. Mr. S.A. Mehmood Saddozai, the learned Chief Prosecutor Ehtesab Bureau, argued that the accused respondent is prima facie involved in offences under the aforementioned provisions of law as there is sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence against him, therefore, his case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He on account of this reason was not entitled to the concession of bail but the High Court through self-contradictory order confirmed his interim bail vide judgment under challenge dated 11-3-2003. While elaborating his point of view he submitted that the accused-respondent granted the approval of the enhanced amount of contract and made payment to the contractor without the approval of PC-1. There is sufficient documentary evidence in support of the charges against him. According to him, the order of confirmation of his bail, therefore, is contrary to the spirit of law and is liable to be set aside. He in the light of his submissions craved that the respondent be retrieved to the investigating agency of the Ehtesab Bureau in order to finalize the investigation against him.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, the learned counsel for the respondent, strenuously argued that the instant appeal filed by Ehtesab Bureau is not properly constituted, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, it is liable to be dismissed on two-fold grounds. Firstly that the appeal has been filed without the prior sanction of the Government, therefore, in the eye of law there is no appeal before this Court and secondly that the reverence Chairman Ehtesab Bureau had not directed the learned Chief Prosecutor to file petition for leave to appeal before this Court seeking cancellation of the order of bail granted to his client. He supported his arguments by placing reliance upon the Full Court judgment of this Court titled Ehtesab Bureau v. Ch. Abdul Razzaq and others, decided on 4-12-2003.
5. Conversely Mr. S.A. Mehmood Saddozai, the learned Chief Prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau, argued that the law has not been properly laid down in the case of Abdul Razzaq and others,' therefore, he requested that the same in exercise of our review jurisdiction be corrected. According to him, under section 47 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, the Ehtesab Bureau is a special institution. In the same way in Schedule 1 of the Rules of Business, 1985, the list of special institutions and autonomous bodies is given in detail wherein the Ehtesab Bureau has been entered as special institution. All special institutions and autonomous bodies, therefore, are the independent organs in the sphere of their functions assigned to them but these provisions of law were not properly considered while drafting the judgment in Abdul Razzaq's case.
6. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Besides the provisions referred to by the learned Chief Prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau, there is another provision under rule 47 of the Rules of Business, 1985, in which it is laid down that all special institutions are attached department of the Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government for administrative and financial purposes. However at this time the view of this Court expressed by Full Court cannot be reviewed as no review petition was filed by the Ehtesab Bureau against this judgment wherein in para.12, it was held as follows:-- "12. It may also be stated that the Ehtesab Bureau of AJ&K in accordance with rule 2(1) and rule 47 of the AJ&K Rules of Business, 1985, read with Serial No.14 of Schedule 1 of the said rules, is an attached department of the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. An appeal on behalf of the Ehtesab Bureau could not be filed without the prior approval/ sanction of the Government. The instant appeal even on this score is also not maintainable."
7. Even otherwise no ground has been taken in the present case by the Ehtesab Bureau against the view expressed by us in Abdul Razzaq's case either in the petition for leave to appeal or in the concise statement. Under rules this Court is obliged to resolve such questions of law and facts which are pleaded by the contesting parties either in petition/appeal or in their concise statements. We have repeatedly laid down that if any party has not raised in petition for leave to appeal or in the concise statement any question of law or facts which goes to the root of the case, such party may move an application seeking amendment in the concise statement. The Court after receiving objections from the other side and providing right of hearing to the parties, may allow such point to be raised and the party concerned in the light of the permission of the Court, can affect amendment in the concise statement and the respondent accordingly can file concise statement by adding his explanation to the extent of such new point. In the present case, as mentioned earlier, no objection was raised about the law laid down by this Court in Abdul Razzaq's case either in the petition for leave to appeal or in the concise statement nor upto this time any application was moved on behalf of Ehtesab Bureau seeking permission to raise any objection about that view in the concise statement. Under Order XIX, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, this Court can resolve only such questions which are raised either in the petition/appeal or in the concise statements by the parties. The Court cannot travel beyond the pleaded facts. Therefore, the objections raised by the learned Chief Prosecutor Ehtesab Bureau about the law laid down by this Court in Abdul Razzaq's case cannot be ignored till the time the law laid down in Abdul Razzaq's case holds the field. The judgment of this Court can be A reviewed only by this Court otherwise the law laid down by this Court is the law of the land which under the provision of section 42-A of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, must be followed by all concerned within the boundaries of this liberated part of the State.
8. As the petition for leave to appeal was filed before this Court without the prior sanction of the Government, therefore, in the light of law laid down by us in Abdul Razzaq's case, the present appeal is not properly constituted and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground. So far other question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned that as Chief Prosecutor, Ehtesab Bureau was not authorized by the reverence Chairman Ehtesab Bureau to file petition for leave to appeal before this Court for the cancellation of bail of respondent, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. We leave this point open for decision in some other case where its resolution shall be imperative.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal having filed without the sanction of the Government is not properly constituted, therefore, the same stands dismissed.