The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proper evidence and sanction for prosecution under the relevant provisions of the law in cases of unauthorized construction and corruption.

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. A writ petition vide W.P.(C) 4582/2003 was filed by Kalyan Sansthan Social Welfare Organization before the Delhi High Court seeking action against defaulting engineers and officials of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‘MCD’) and for probing their nexus with the hierarchy in the engineering department, builders and the political functionaries.

2. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in the aforesaid petition, a preliminary inquiry was held and pursuant to such preliminary inquiry (PE No.1/06/EOW-IV) a regular case RC No. RCSI8 2006 E 0009 was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) against five accused persons: three functionaries of the MCD and the other two who are the respondents in the present petition viz. M/s Sea Shell Marketing Private Ltd. and its Managing Director Ved Prakash Chaudhary. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint by the DSP, CBI, alleging that in the year 2003-04, the engineers of the MCD abused their official position and thereby caused undue pecuniary gain to a private builder M/s Sea Shell Marketing Private Ltd. (respondent no.1) while dealing with an unauthorized construction of a commercial complex at Khasra No.218, Sultanpur Village, Main M.G. Road, Mehrauli, Delhi. During the aforesaid period, an illegal construction of a commercial complex was noticed by the MCD on the plot referred to above. A demolition order was passed and subsequently sealing orders were issued by the Zonal Deputy Commissioner in the month of December, 2003. Despite the processes having been initiated for demolition, deliberately no action was taken by the employees of MCD for the purpose of delaying and prolonging the issue. Because of such lackadaisical approach, the illegal construction of the building continued and the construction level reached till the 3rd floor. Despite a serious view having been taken by the MCD, no action was taken by the three named accused persons in the FIR who are the engineers of MCD, facilitating the completion of building and the same being let out on rent/lease to various commercial establishments. This caused unlawful gain to the respondents and other accused persons.

3. After investigation, CBI submitted chargesheet on 14.12.2007 in which Ashok Kumar Gupta (Executive Engineer), Anil Kumar (Assistant Engineer) and Pawan Kumar Jain (Junior Engineer) and respondent no.1, M/s Sea Shell Marketing Private Ltd., were sent up for trial. Respondent no.2, Ved Prakash Chaudhary, the managing director of M/s Sea Shell Marketing Private Ltd. was not chargesheeted. The learned Trial Court, differing with the police report in that regard summoned all the accused persons including respondent no.2 for facing trial.

4. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2012 passed in CBI Case No.43/2011 discharged all the accused persons including the respondents.

5. The aforesaid order is under challenge by the CBI but only with respect to the respondents who are the private parties and not against other accused persons who are officials (engineers) of the MCD.

6. On perusal of documents relied upon by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court was of the view that no prima facie material/evidence could be collected against the MCD officials for their having entered into any conspiracy with the accused persons for facilitating the delay in demolition of the illegal construction which ultimately led to the illegal construction being completed and being let out for pecuniary gain. The Court below, considering the fact that unauthorized construction in question, had already been raised to a substantial level before the accused engineers of the MCD were posted in the concerned zones and that also for a very short duration.

7. The prosecution could not demonstrate that with respect to unauthorized construction, succ