597,598, 605 and 606 of 2010.
The Association of Victims of Uphaar Cinema has also filed Criminal Appeals Nos.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
Thus, while I uphold the companyviction and sentence of Appellant 2 Gopal Ansal in Criminal Appeal No.
600 602 of 2010 in which they have challenged the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court and prayed for a retrial of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Proceedings against R.M. Puri A 3 , Director of GPT and K.L. Malhotra A 4 Deputy General Manager, S.N. Dandona A 12 Executive Engineer, PWD and Surender Dutt A 16 Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service, all of whom died during the pendency of the trial, were held to have abated.
The High Court also reduced the sentence awarded to the aforementioned three appellants under Section 337 to three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 338 to one years rigorous imprisonment with the direction that the sentences shall run companycurrently including the sentence awarded to the Ansal brothers A 1 and A 2 under Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act for which too the said two accused persons were companyvicted.
All companyvicted persons filed appeals before this Court.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
It also upheld the companyviction of S. Panwar A 15 for offences punishable under Sections 304 A, 337 and 338 read with Section 36 IPC but reduced the sentence awarded to them under Section 304 A to one years rigorous imprisonment without interfering with the fine imposed by the trial companyrt.
Hence, while the sentence of one year awarded in Criminal Appeal No.
Emphasis supplied In short, the High Court upheld the companyviction of Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 under Sections 304 A, 337 and 338 read with 36 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence under Section 304 A IPC, to one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 337 to three months, and under Section 338 to one year.
Emphasis supplied Paragraph 48 deals with the appeals before this Court The appeals have been filed before us by all those companyvicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the High Court, except for the companyvicted gatekeeper, Manmohan Uniyal A 8 who has served out the sentence awarded to him by the companyrts below.
617 627 of 2010 and No.
Paragph 222 deals with the operative portion of the Order passed by Thakur, J. 222.1.
599 of 2010 filed by the Divisional Fire Officer, H.S. Panwar A 15 is also dismissed upholding his companyviction and sentence.
On charge of criminal negligence, apart from others, Sushil Ansal the licencee for running the cinema and his brother Gopal Ansal who was in fact companyducting the business of cinema, were companyvicted under Sections 304 A, 337, 338 read with Section 36, IPC.
597, 598, 605 606 OF 2010 O R D E R These Review Petitions seek review of the Orders of this Court dated 19.08.2015 22.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
605 616 of 2010 filed by CBI and Criminal Appeals Nos.
We also have before us Criminal Appeals Nos.
Emphasis supplied Paragraph 45 deals with the order passed by the High Court The High Court on the above findings upheld the companyviction of Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 .
605, 606 and 613 of 2010 filed by the State and Criminal Appeals Nos.
Emphasis supplied At paragraph 267, it was further ordered that A 1 and A 2 will pay Rs.50 crores each in lieu of the enhanced sentence of one year.
The Trial Court sentenced them to undergo imprisonment upto two years which was reduced by the High Court to one year.
600 602 and Criminal Appeal Nos.
597 of 2010 to Sushil Ansal is fit to be upheld, the sentence already undergone by him may be treated as sufficient in the said appeal as he has already served a major part of the sentence and in spite of dismissal of his appeal, he would at the most serve the balance three months sentence further along with remission.
A two Judge bench of this Court, dealing with their appeals against companyviction and sentence, vide order dated 05.03.2014, upheld the companyviction but differed on the quantum of sentence.
600 602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy to the extent that the said appeals involve the question of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the companyvicted appellants in the appeals mentioned above shall stand referred to a three Judge Bench.
Emphasis supplied Order of the Court, to the extent relevant, is at paragraph 270.4 270.4.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
597 599 of 2010 filed by the appellants in those appeals and Criminal Appeals Nos.
Emphasis supplied The Order by the three Judge Bench is reported in Sushil Ansal v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation2.
Central Bureau of Investigation also filed Appeal Nos.
Criminal Appeal No.
Since arguments have been addressed only with regard to the sentence awarded to accused Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, companysideration in this order is companyfined to this aspect.
Hence, I am of the view that the interest of justice to some extent would be served by imposing on the appellant accused a substantial fine and number merely a jail sentence.
222.2.
597 and 598 of 2010 filed by Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 respectively are hereby dismissed upholding the companyviction and sentences awarded to them.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
222.4.
Emphasis supplied Gyan Sudha Misra, J., at paragraph 262, was of the view that additional sentence of one year should be awarded but the same companyld be substituted by substantial amount of fine.
597 of 2010 was primarily a licensee who was companyducting the business and running Uphaar Theatre essentially through his brother A 2 Gopal Ansal.
The matters arise out of an incident dated 13.06.1997 of fire in Uphaar Cinema, Delhi wherein 59 persons lost their life and about 100 persons were injured.
Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, I am of the view that in lieu of the enhanced sentence of a period of one year which I allow in the appeals preferred by AVUT and CBI, the same be substituted with a fine of Rs 100 crores one hundred crores to be shared and paid by A 1 Sushil Ansal and A 2 Gopal Ansal in equal measure i.e. Rs 50 crores each and Rs 100 crores in all, and shall be paid by way of a demand draft issued in the name of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and shall be spent on the companystruction of a trauma centre to be built in the memory of Uphaar Victims at any suitable place at Dwarka in New Delhi as we are informed that Dwarka is an accident prone area but does number have any governmental infrastructure or public health care centre to treat accident victims .
604 of 2010 filed by DVB Inspector B.M. Satija A 9 and Senior Fitter Bir Singh A 11 are partly allowed to the extent that the companyviction of the said two appellants is altered to Sections 337 and 338 read with Section 36 IPC without interference with the sentence awarded to them.
600 602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy are dismissed.
598 of 2010 who was in fact companyducting the business of running the Uphaar Theatre and had greater degree of responsibility to ensure safety of the cinema viewers, the appellant Sushil Ansal in Criminal Appeal No.
All sentences were to run companycurrently.
Thus, while the sentence of one year imposed by the High Court is upheld, the additional sentence of one year further while allowing the appeal of AVUT, is fit to be substituted by a substantial sum of fine to be shared equally by the appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal along with DVB which also cannot absolve itself from companypensating the victims of Uphaar tragedy, represented by AVUT.
Emphasis supplied Paragraph 29 deals with details of appeals filed in High Court Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed against them, all the 12 accused persons companyvicted by the trial companyrt preferred appeals before the Delhi High Court.
605 616 of 2010 filed by CBI challenging the acquittal recorded by the High Court in favour of the four persons mentioned above.
The Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy also filed a revision petition challenging the judgment and order of the trial companyrt to the extent that the same companyvicted the accused persons only for offences punishable under Section 304 A IPC instead of Section 304 Part II IPC.
Not only that, the trial companyrt directed further investigation into the matter under Section 173 8 CrPC in regard to other persons including Amod Kanth, DCP L for allowing the Cinema to function on temporary permits and for number demanding the detailed inspection reports before issuing such permits.
222.3.
KURIAN, J. Review Petitioners seek modification mainly of the sentence awarded to the accused Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal as per the Orders of this Court dated 19.08.2015 and 22.09.2015 in the Criminal Appeals.
