The court said when there is no previous sanction, the magistrate cannot order probe against a public servant by invoking section 156(3) (police officer's power to investigate cognizable case) of the CrPC in a complaint filed against him.
"Thus the contention of counsel for complainant that at the stage of exercise of power under section 156(3) of the CrPC, sanction was not required is without merit. Thus, once there is no previous sanction, a magistrate cannot order investigation by invoking power under section 156(3) CrPC," special CBI judge Poonam Chaudhry said.
It said the allegation against the MLA was under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction under the law was mandatory for proceeding against him.
"The requirement of law for a valid sanction for proceeding against public servant is mandatory," it said.
More From This Section
Regarding the public servant and the woman, the court said the allegations against them were under the Public Premises (Eviction unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971, and complainant Vivek Garg can take recourse to the legal remedy provided under the Act.
A show-cause notice was issued to Veena in November 2014, calling for an explanation but no satisfactory reply was received, it alleged, adding that presence of unauthorised occupants in the flat showed that it was a case of subletting and thereby cheating Delhi Administration or government.
The complaint further alleged that Tripathi requested PWD to prolong the matter of allotment of flat as it was under the consideration of PWD minister and by using his influence, he unlawfully managed to do it.