DEFENCE ARGUMENTS

1. Mr.Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued on the assumption that Mr.Sushil Ansal was the licensee of the Cinema. However, it has already been demonstrated through various documentary evidence by the defence that the licensee was the company and representative of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri, Whole Time Director on the day of incident. Infact it has already been shown by the defence that Mr.Sushil Ansal and Mr.Gopal Ansal had resigned from the Board in October, 1988 i.e. almost 10 years before to the incident.
2. Shri Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued that the cause of fire was the DVB Transformer because of poor maintenance and bad repair by the DVB people and the smoke and toxic gases got generated from the Transformer Oil and that was the causa causan. The Uphaar Transformer is completely intact even today.
3. The prosecution argued that even if the sanction and approvals were obtained by the Uphaar Management with regard to placement of seats change of gangways and exit doors, still it needs to be examined whether the Licensing Authority has done it correctly or not. The Defence has already demonstrated through documents and oral evidence that all the arrangements were sanctioned / approved as per rules.
4. The prosecution also argued out certain deviations in the building and working of some commercial establishments in the Cinema Complex. The Defence has already demonstrated that none of the alleged deviations were violative of the Building Bye Laws and none of them were causing hindrance in egress and ingress of the patrons.
5. The prosecution continued to argue that Ansal Brothers were involved in day to day running of the theatre whereas through the documentary and oral evidence, it has been demonstrated by the Defence that they were not on the Board since 1988 and the Company was being run by Board of Professionals and Whole Time Director of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri and Mr.K.L.Malhotra was its Dy.General Manager.
6. If there were irregularities in the Cinema Hall, the Fire Department, MCD, PWD, etc. would not have given NOC’s and the Licensing Authority would not have renewed the Licence / Permit from time to time over the last several years.
7. The full duty of care as expected by the Management with regard to provisions of public safety, they were in place otherwise the sanctioning authority would not have given clearances.
8. The whole basis of the prosecution argument has been on the wrong assumption that individual was the Licensee and not the Company. The defence in its arguments have already placed on record a letter dated 06-03-97 wherein it has been acknowledged by the Licensing Authority that the name of the controlling company of the Uphaar Cinema has been changed from Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. to Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd. Mr.R.M.Puri, the Whole Time Director and Mr.K.L.Malhotra, Dy.General Manager were the Authorised Representative of the Company for operating the Uphaar Cinema and for all dealings with the Licensing Authority .
9. After the fire, the temporary permit was revoked by the Licensing Authority wherein it has been mentioned that the Licensee of Uphaar Cinema is M/s.Ansal. Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.

Defence refutes Prosecution Charges

 

1. Charge of Licensee and Owner of Uphaar Cinema – Company not individuals
   The CBI once again tried to argue that the Ansals were the licensee. The defense counsel has already demonstrated that no individual was the licensee but it was the cinema owning company. In fact the defense counsel question the validity of the charge so framed. From the evidence available on court records it has been demonstrated clearly that initially Green Park Theater Associated Pvt. Ltd. was the owner and licensee and since the name of the company was changed to ATCPL on 11/03/1996 – ATCPL was the licensee of the Uphaar Cinema and not any individual and Mr. R.M. Puri was the Whole Time Director and representative on the date of incident i.e. 13.06.1997.
2. Allegation regarding management and control of Uphaar Cinema by Ansal Brothers – Refuted by defence
   The Defence Counsel demonstrated from the evidence available with the Court records that Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal resigned from the Directorship of GPTA on 17.10.1988 thereafter they had no concern with the affairs of Uphaar Cinema. The Company was managed by a professional Board of Directors and the Whole Time Director was Mr. R.M. Puri., who was expert in the field of Cinema Business. The minutes of meeting of GPTA dt.17.10.1988 and submission of Form 32 together with the statement of the Registrar of Companies were also referred and relied upon by the Defence Counsel.
3. Allegation regarding signing of cheques to any amount – Not significant
   After 17.10.1988, Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal were authorized only to sign the cheque as authorised signatory. It was also demonstrated that even other persons and directors of the company who did not belong to Ansal family were authorized to sign the cheques of unlimited amounts. In this context the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court was also referred in which it has been held that a signatory of the cheque has nothing to do with the management and control of affairs of the company.
4. Cheque of Rs.50.00 Lacs signed by Mr. Sushil Ansal – has no bearing on case
   It was argued by the Defence Counsel that the cheque of Rs 50.00 Lacs pertained to the sale consideration of shares of Mr. Ansal to GPTA. It was also argued that the prosecution has deliberately withheld the filing of documents of sale transaction of shares and has only placed the cheque on record in order to falsely implicate Mr. Ansal. This cheque had nothing to do with the business and affairs of Uphaar Cinema. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has been laid down that the signatory of a cheque cannot be deemed to be involved in the day to day affairs of the company and he is authorized only for specific purpose i.e. signing the cheques.
5. Installation of DVB Transformer in Uphaar Cinema premises – on compellation
   Another charge against Uphaar management was that it allowed the installation of DVB transformer inside the premises of Uphaar Cinema. The Defence Counsel demonstrated from the record that in order to secure electricity supply for Uphaar Cinema, the Uphaar management was compelled to provide space to DESU for installation of its sub-station in the Cinema premises for catering to the need of electricity to the surrounding Green Park area. Since the DESU was delaying the supply of electrical energy to Uphaar Cinema, as such the management was left with no other option except to provide space to DESU for installation of its service station. It was also argued by the Defence Counsel that such installation was not illegal and was permissible under section 42 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and, not only this, the said installation was done pursuant to an agreement executed between DESU and GPTA, the owner of Uphaar Cinema. As a result no illegality was committed in allowing the installation of transformer to DESU.
6. Increase of Seats and closure of Gangway in the Balcony – fully authorized
   Another charge is that the management of Uphaar Cinema had increased the number of seats and closed the gangways in the balcony. From voluminous evidence available on Court record the Defence Counsel have demonstrated that whatever was done that was in compliance of the order passed or the directions issued by the Delhi High Court or the statutory authorities. In this way the increase of seats and closure of gangway by the Cinema owner did not constitute any offence.
7. Protection of Cinema owner against the acts done in compliance of the order passed by Delhi HighCourt and statutory authority
   It has been argued by the Defence Counsel that the seats were increased and the gangway was closed in substantial compliance of Cinematograph rules 1953 as per the directions issued by the Delhi High Court to the licensing authority. Pursuant to the said direction the licensing authority together with higher authorities, PWD, Health Department, MCD, etc. inspected the cinema and permitted the closure of gangway and increase of 37 seats in the balcony finding them to be in substantial compliance of the Cinematograph rules 1953. Therefore, the cinema owner was protected under section 78 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code which clearly contemplated that if an act is done pursuant to some order of the Court or of the authority no offence can be said to have been committed.
8. Deviation from building bye laws – negated by defence                                                                                                 From the Court record, it has been demonstrated by Defence Counsel that whatever deviations were alleged, most of them were removed. The remaining deviations were neither violative of Building Bye laws nor they caused any obstruction in the ingress or egress of the patrons. If these deviations contributed anything against the safety of the patrons, the statutory authorities like Fire, PWD, Electrical Inspector, Licensing, etc., who had been making periodical inspections, would not have renewed the Cinema Licence or issued temporary permits time and again.
9. Day to day affairs – demonstrated that Ansals were not involved
   The Defence Counsel referred to and relied upon voluminous evidence available on record to demonstrate that right from the beginning i.e. in the year 1976 different persons including Mr. K.L. Malhotra were nominated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to look after the day to day affairs of Cinema. Not only this on 17.10.1988 when the Ansal Brothers resigned from Directorship, was Mr. R.M. Puri appointed as Whole Time Director of the Cinema Owning Company. Even in 1996 when the name of the company was changed, again the names of Mr. R.M. Puri and Mr. K.L. Malhotra were communicated as nominee to the licensing authority on 16.12.1996 who acknowledged them vide letter dated 6.3.1997. The Defence Counsel also referred to several correspondence and inspections conducted periodically in which either Mr. K.L. Malhotra or Mr. R.M. Puri were found present / involved. The documents referred by the Defence Counsel clearly demonstrate that it was Mr. K.L. Malhotra or Mr. R.M. Puri who were involved in day to day affairs of Cinema and were actually controlling the said business.
10. Attending Board meetings as Special Invitee
    It has been argued by the Defence Counsel that the Companies Act does not recognize the Special Invitee having any role in the affairs of the Company. Anybody can be called as Special Invitee for seeking his expert opinion on technical issues although such opinion is not binding on the Board. Secondly it was argued that in all the four Board meetings no Cinema Business was discussed and these meetings were mainly concerned with the expansion of the business of the company in the fields of clubs and real estate. The presence of Mr. Sushil Ansal in these meetings was therefore, of no significance in so far as the case of prosecution is concerned.
11. Affidavit signed by Mr. Sushil Ansal in 1992
    The Defence Counsel referred to the applications and affidavits for renewal of Cinema Licence submitted to the licensing authority for the periods from 1993-94 to 1997-98. They argued that it was a mistake due to oversight which was rectified for subsequent years and continuously for five years the applications and affidavits for renewal of Cinema Licence were signed and filed by Mr. R.M. Puri the Whole Time Director and Mr. K.L. Malhotra the Deputy General Manager of the Cinema Owning Company. Moreover, this isolated affidavit did not have even a remote connection with the incident which took place in the year 1997.
12. Share holding in the Company
    It was argued by the Defence Counsel that share holders are neither the owners of the company nor they are entitled to its assets. The rights of the share holder are limited to participation in Annual General Meeting and to the profit declared by the company in the shape of dividend, the share holder is not entitled to any other benefit in the company. It is the Board of Directors of the company who are responsible for day to day conduct of business of the company. Number of judgments were cited on this point in which Supreme Court has affirmed the aforesaid view.
13. 2^nd Term of Mr. Gopal Ansal as Director after 1988 –(Exclusively for Clubs)
    The Defence Counsel argued and demonstrated from evidence on record that since GPTA expanded its business in the field of Club also as such Mr. Gopal Ansal was inducted as additional Director for establishment of the Club business being an expert in the said field. His tenure commenced on 24.12.1994 and came to an end by his resignation on 30.06.1995. The meetings of Board of Directors of the Company attended by him during this period were confined to Club Business only and he was not at all involved in the business of Uphaar Cinema.
14. Cause of Death
    The Defence Counsel argued and demonstrated from evidence on record that there was no other cause of death except the smoke which emanated from the transformer which was in exclusive control of DVB and was not having mandatory safety measures and protection systems. Had the protection systems been installed in the transformer, it would have tripped and even the possibility of catching the fire would have been ruled out. Even the experts from CBRI, CFSL and Electrical Inspaector have confirmed that the only cause of death was the DVB transformer which caught fire due to its poor maintenance and absence of protection systems.

20.08.07 – Today’s Update

Mr.Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued on the assumption that Mr.Sushil Ansal was the licensee of the Cinema.  However, it has already been demonstrated through various documentary evidence by the defence that the licensee was the company and representative of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri, Whole Time Director on the day of incident.  Infact it has already been shown by the defence that Mr.Sushil Ansal and Mr.Gopal Ansal had resigned from the Board in October, 1988 i.e. almost 10 years before to the incident. 

Shri Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued that the cause of fire was the DVB Transformer because of poor maintenance and bad repair by the DVB people and the smoke and toxic gases got generated from the Transformer Oil and that was the causa causan.  The Uphaar Transformer is completely intact even today. 

The prosecution argued that even if the sanction and approvals were obtained by the Uphaar Management with regard to placement of seats change of gangways and exit doors, still it needs to be examined whether the Licensing Authority has done it correctly or not.  The Defence has already demonstrated through documents and oral evidence that all the arrangements were sanctioned / approved as per rules. 

The prosecution also argued out certain deviations in the building and working of some commercial establishments in the Cinema Complex.  The defence has already demonstrated that none of the alleged deviations were violative of the Building Bye Laws and none of them were causing hindrance in egress and ingress of the patrons. 

The prosecution continued to argue that Ansal Brothers were involved in day to day running of the theatre whereas through the documentary and oral evidence, it has been demonstrated by the defence that they were not on the Board since 1988 and the Company was being run by Board of Professionals and Whole Time Director of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri and Mr.K.L.Malhotra was its Dy.General Manager. 

If there were irregularities in the Cinema Hall, the Fire Department, MCD, PWD, etc. would not have given NOC’s and the Licensing Authority would not have renewed the Licence / Permit from time to time over the last several years. 

 The full duty of care as expected by the Management with regard to provisions of public safety, they were in place otherwise the sanctioning authority would not have given clearances. 

The whole basis of the prosecution argument has been on the wrong assumption that individual was the Licensee and not the Company.  The defence in its arguments have already placed on record a letter dated 06-03-97 wherein it has been acknowledged by the Licensing Authority that the name of the controlling company of the Uphaar Cinema has been changed from Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. to Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.  Mr.R.M.Puri, the Whole Time Director and Mr.K.L.Malhotra, Dy.General Manager were the Authorised Representative of the Company for operating the Uphaar Cinema and for all dealings with the Licensing Authority (copy enclosed). 

After the fire, the temporary permit was revoked by the Licensing Authority wherein it has been mentioned that the Licensee of Uphaar Cinema is M/s.Ansal. Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.

Article and update by Advocate Prem Kumar (Former Patiala House Court)

I have been a practicing advocate for many years now and have sat on judgment for over a lot of cases in my tenure as Patiala Court Judge. The words of our former Attorney General of India and eminent jurist Soli J.Soabjee, in a recent ‘Times of India’ article (on the 6^th of August’07), rings loud and clear in my minds ‘just because a popular star, a very important personality…..with high level people, speaking in his favour, no signal should go to the people, that there is a celebrity justice system”, he stated. He went on to say that media hype could be ‘counterproductive’ and if public opinion is misinformed, it should be ‘ignored’.

Public interfering with the judicial process either by demanding instant justice via media pressure or vociferously criticizing pronouncements, intimidating judges – especially in high profile cases. This is a dangerous trend, and could lead to miscarriage of justice.

The ‘responsible media’ have tried to keep a balanced view. But some have succumbed to the alter of ‘celebrity sensationalisation’.

The ‘Sanjay Dutt’ verdict is a timely reminder to all those who believe that there is one justice system for the celebrities and one for everyone else. There is no two tier justice system and the very idea that you have justice and then you have celebrity justice is really offensive and goes against the basic tenet of rule of law. ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’. This is, however, one facet of the coin. The other aspect of the matter which has hardly received due and adequate attention in the media is : should a person be denied his rights as an accused because he happens to be a celebrity. A person cannot be denied justice and a different benchmark fixed for him to his disadvantage only because he happens to be a celebrity in his own right. Courts have to remain unaffected and impartial and treat offenders equal before the law to a pre trial publicity which at times reflects its hostility and prejudice towards such an accused.

The larger issue that bothers the Society today is whether the media is crossing limits in commenting on celebrities and promoting trial by media. No doubt, media is the fourth limb of a democratic system and freedom of the media is indeed an integral part of the freedom of expression and essential requisite of a democratic setup, but the media has to operate within the framework of the relevant statutes and constitutional provision to act in public and national interest.

The media has an obligation to respect the rights of individuals and to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the Court proceedings before publishing the same. Media has, no doubt, right to gather and convey information to the public and to comment on the administration of justice including cases before, during and after trial but without violating the presumption of innocence of the accused whoever he may be and whatever his standing in public and social life.

There is need today for stricter laws, particularly in relation to criminal proceedings and in the interest of the administration of justice for the prevention of serious prejudice to an accused and also for the prevention of serious harm to or improper pressure being placed on a witness or a victim.

Obviously, sensationalisation and trivialization of the news and information has to be avoided. Media has certainly to be a watchdog of the society in the real sense. After all a barrage of negative publicity dents the presumption of innocence of accused in public mind and celebrity becomes vulnerable to a media generated presumption of guilt which also cannot be said to be in public interest. The rights of an individual accused whoever he may be need protection to strengthen the criminal justice system and the rule of law.

Let’s take the Uphaar Case for example. The reverse of the ‘Sanjay Dutt’ case is true here. Mr.Ansal is a well known and well respected personality of North India. But that is no reason why he should be ‘victimised’ inspite of not being the prime accused, not being the director of the cinema owning company and not being in any shape or form within the definition of ‘gross negligence’, in accordance with IPC. Even the cinema owning company – having demonstrated through various and numerous exhibits and evidences that all seating arrangements were in accordance to all bye-laws, and fire safety measures were intact – as confirmed by all the licensing authorities at the time.

It was a tragic accident! Yet one keeps hearing the ‘Ansal’ name being associated with the case again and again. Why does this illogical craving for hounding the celebrities? I suppose it makes for spicy gossip! But in the process, the legal system may be compromised – undue pressure is put on the system. Innocent (till proven otherwise) people are victimized and lashed by the people who are blinded by misplaced alliances. But the law cannot, must not succumb! Wrong founded ‘emotions’ have no part in justice.

Let’s face facts. There is no case against the ‘Ansals’ in the Uphaar Case. Let the law take its right full course – unbiased, logical and pure. We all await the right verdict. The only true verdict.

09.08.2007 – TODAY’S UPDATE

On 6th August 2007 an application was moved on behalf of accused that the prosecution should not be allowed to reargue the case on facts and it should confine its arguments in rebuttal to the legal issues only but subject to permission of the Court. This application was argued on 9th August, 2007 by the Advocates for both the sides in light of Section 234 of the Cr PC. The learned judge after hearing the arguments reserved the decision on the said application and orally allowed the Public Prosecutor to start arguments on legal points.

The public prosecutor opened his arguments and started reading the documents. Despite being objected to by the counsels for the accused the Public Prosecutor continued to refer to the documents and argued the case on facts.

The public prosecutor also referred to a judgment which was passed by the High Court in revision filed by the accused against the charges framed. This judgment is totally irrelevant and the observations made therein have no bearing at the stage of final arguments of a Sessions trial.

In the result the prosecution is being allowed to continue its arguments in breach of the mandatory provisions contained in Cr. PC

In any case, the reiteration of the documents contents by the prosecution – have all been systematically refuted by way of evidences and proofs by defense lawyers in the past weeks. All the prosecution points were demonstrated as being baseless.

06.08.2007 – EMOTIONS MUST NOT RULE THE COURT

Senior Advocate, Mr.Prem Kumar addressed the court in his concluding arguments on the Uphaar Cinema case. He was very clear about the fact that in the legal jurisprudence, emotions cannot and must not rule the court judgments. Courts are hallowed institutions, the majesty of which cannot be defiled by the biased emotions or by any popular instigation propagated by any interested parties. In our civilized society all we have to keep us free & democratic, is the law of the land. It is the constitutional right of every Indian citizen to be tried by courts adhering to the Indian Penal Code which lay down specifically on what basis a person can be deemed as guilty or innocent. If the law clearly finds a person innocent no amount of drumming up of popular sentiments can victimize that individual. The reverse is as true.

The recent judgment on Sanjay Dutt has clearly demonstrated the sanctity of the law inspite of a mountain of pressure by the media and his numerous fans. Advocate Prem Kumar quoted many cases to strengthen his point. That is why it is imperative that the closing arguments of the defense in the Uphaar Cinema case be exposed to the public so that they are aware of the facts of the case and not just the superficial hoopla created. Let’s face facts:

1. The company called Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. later renamed as ATCL was the licensee and was responsible for Uphaar Cinema not any individual.

2. It is also very important to note that the Ansals had resigned from the directorship in 1988, 10 years before the incident.

3. The transformer which was the main cause of fire belonged to DVB and not to Uphaar Cinema. The transformer owned by Uphaar Cinema is still intact.

4. Eminent advocate Pt.Naseem, step by step and detail by detail, demonstrated that all seating arrangements and gangways, etc were in perfect compliance with the rules and regulations and building bylaws of the time. There was no violation whatsoever. Any changes, deviations were all in accordance with the competent authorities who had cleared Uphaar Cinema alongwith 42 other cinemas of Delhi.

5. Pt.Naseem also clearly demonstrated by way of witnesses that fire safety measures were complete and in working order at the time as clearly reported by licensing authorities in granting clearances to operate the cinema.

Eminent Advocate Prem Kumar concluded and summarized the matter by referring to Section 304A IPC and the judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Courts and demonstrated, ‘that no case u/s 304A is made out against Mr.Sushil Ansal or Mr.Gopal Ansal as the direct, proximate and immediate cause of death was the fire in the DVB transformer which was in complete control and management of DVB authorities. He once again reiterated that neither Mr.Sushil Ansal or Mr.Gopal Ansal were the licensee or the owner of Uphaar Cinema nor they were Directors of the company which was running the cinema and consequently no role for the incident which took place on 13.06.1997 can be attributed to them’.

Let the law take its course in an unbiased, fair and just manner. The truth may not attract a lot of sensational headlines, to titillate the public at large but atleast it will prove the innocence of people like the Ansals who have been suffering like victims for over 10 years. It was a tragic sad accident. Let the matter rest there. Let us not continue to create suffering for the innocents.

03. 08.2007 – Search for the truth

While concluding his arguments Mr. Chopra contended that it is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. The emotions and sentiments should not be allowed to interfere in the judicial pronouncements. In support of his contention Mr. Chopra mainly relied upon two cases of the Supreme Court. In the case titled Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., the Supreme Court has made the observation, the relevant extract of which is quoted hereinbelow :-

“The Courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because of acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the Courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused.”

In another judgment titled State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Laxman Kumar, the Supreme Court has been more critic and made the following observations:-

“It is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and act according to law once the truth is discovered. In that search for truth obviously the Court has to function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. What happens outside the court rooms when the Court is busy in its process of adjudication is indeed in irrelevant and unless a proper cushion is provided to keep the proceedings within the Court room dissociated from the heat generated outside the Court room either through the News Media or through flutter in the public mind, the cause of justice is bound to suffer.”

“ It is the outcome of cool deliberations and the screening of the material by the informed mind of the judge that leads to determination of the lis. If the cushion is lost and the court room is allowed to vibrate with the heat generated outside it, the adjudicatory process suffers and the search for truth is stifled.”

“The Courts cannot allow any emotional and sentimental feelings to come into judicial pronouncements. Once sentimental and emotions feelings are allowed to enter the judicial mind the Judge is bound to view the evidence with a bias and in that case the conclusion may also be biased resulting in some cases in great injustice. The cases have to be decided strictly on evidence howsoever cruel or horrifying the crime may be. All possible chances of innocent man being convicted have to be ruled out. There should be no hostile atmosphere against an accused in court. A hostile atmosphere is bound to interfere in an unbiased approach as well as a decision. This has to be avoided at all costs.”

02.08.2007 – Cinema Staff Risked Life in Evacuating Patrons

All emergency lights, PA systems and fire safety measures were in full working order

 

 Mr. K.C.Chopra, Advocate for the defense demonstrated before the Court that cinema staff Maj. Ajit Chaudhary was actively involved in assisting patrons alongwith other staff members. He alongwith other staff helped the patrons in going outside the Cinema Hall. In this process large number of patrons were rescued. During the rescue operation Maj. Chaudhary himself became unconscious by inhaling the smoke and was admitted to the AIIMS by the Police where he received the treatment. This fact is clearly borne out from the evidence on Court record and the medical certificate issued by AIIMS. He further pointed out that it is absolutely unfair to charge the Uphaar staff by putting blame on them that they did not assist the patrons in finding the escape route from cinema hall.

Mr. Chopra also demonstrated from the evidence of the witnesses that the emergency lights, footlights, exit lights and public address system were in order on 13.06.1997. He read out the Inspection Reports of Fire Department Official, who confirmed that all fire safety measures were provided in the cinema hall.

He, however, pointed out that responsibility and liability for safety of the patrons and also for footlights, emergency lights, etc. was of the Whole Time Director, Mr. R.M. Puri and Deputy General Manager, Mr. K.L. Malhotra, who were authorized by the resolution of Board of Directors of Cinema owning company and pursuant to said authority they were looking after the day-to-day affairs and management of Uphaar Cinema. The Ansal name does not even feature in this.

31.07.07 – Special Public Prosecutor – Shows Bias Towards Uphaar Cinema Staff

Mr.K.C.Chopra, Defense Lawyer on behalf of two managers of Uphaar Cinema brought to the notice of the Court that in the Uphaar Trial material witnesses have been willfully withheld by the Special Public Prosecutor which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court and as such he has not acted in all fairness. Mr. Chopra further argued that such an attitude of the Public Prosecutor is not only violative of the Principle of Natural Justice but also of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Earlier Mr. Chopra has also clearly and categorically demonstrated from the Court record that two managers namely Mr. R.K. Sharma and Mr. N.S. Chopra were not on duty at the time of the incident and as such no role can be attributed to them for the fire in DVB Transformer or the cause of death.

He argued that the Public Prosecutor must act in fairness not only to the Court and Investigating Agency but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to make it available to the accused even if the defense counsel has overlooked it. In a Session’s Trial if a private counsel is allowed free hand to conduct prosecution, he would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case. That is the reason why parliament applied a bridle on him before the Sessions Court and subjected his role strictly to the instructions of a Public Prosecutor. Mr. Chopra further argued that a Public Prosecutor is a part of judicial system and an officer of the Court and must act independently in the interest of the justice. The office of Public Prosecutor involves duty of public nature and of vital interest to the public. He has to apply professional ethics and by his role as an Officer of Court to employ only fair means. In support of his arguments Mr. Chopra relied upon the Judgments delivered in cases titled K. Shiva Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka (Decided by Karnataka High Court) and Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukum Chand (Decided by Supreme Court). The investigating officer had stated that he never instructed the Special Public Prosecutor to drop the witness and Special Public Prosecutor had done so of his own accord.

In previous arguments eminent advocates Mr.R.K.Naseem as well as Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi had categorically demonstrated how the prosecution had gone on to malign the Ansal Brothers. Although the investigation of the prosecuting agency revealed that the incident took place due to the fire in the transformer which was in complete control of management of DVB and DVB and was catering the need of the surrounding Green Park area and had no connection with supply of electricity to Uphaar Cinema yet the evidence was adduced targeting Ansal brothers with the object of involve and connect them with the tragedy. Despite the efforts being made the Prosecuting Agency could not succeed in establishing link of Ansal brothers with the cause of incident as contemplated under Section 304-A IPC.

It is also noteworthy that as per the case of prosecution Mr.Sushil Ansal and Mr.Gopal Ansal resigned from the board of directors of the company that owns Uphaar Cinema in 1988 and they were not involved in the cinema business. In spite of this again the prosecution tried to connect the Ansal brothers with the case by highlighting the issue of change in seating arrangements and gangway in the balcony. It is important to point out that the seating arrangements and the gangway in the balcony were made as per gazetted notification issued in 1976 by Lt.Governor of Delhi for 40 cinemas in the city of Delhi. This notification of increasing seats was later withdrawn by Lt.Governor on July 27, 1979. After the withdrawal of the notification the association of cinema owners of Delhi approached the Delhi High Court by filing writ petitions. The Delhi High Court heard the association and the Government and also examined both the notifications as well as documents on record in the light of the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953. After going through the entire record, the Delhi High Court passed a detailed judgment directing the Licensing Authority to re-inspect all the cinemas and allow the seats and gangways in substantial compliance of the Act and Rules. In Compliance of the directions issued by the Delhi High Court the Licensing Authority inspected the cinemas and allowed the retention of seats and gangways which were found in substantial compliance of the Act and Rules.

Even as per the charge sheet which is result of notification and in accordance with the prosecution cases the licensee and owner of Uphaar Cinema was a company known as Green Park Theatres & Associated Pvt.Ltd. (later changed as ATCPL). The prosecution have maliciously and deliberately argued and projected the name of the Ansal brothers as licensee and owners. It seems that the prime target of the prosecuting agency was to malign the Ansals name and nothing else.

The application for renewal of licenses and the affidavits were filed by Mr.K.L.Malhotra and Mr.R.M.Puri respectively. All inspections of Fire Department, PWD and Electrical Department and the licensing authority were got done by Mr.K.L.Malhotra right from 1973 the licensee was the company and on the date of the incident also the licensee was the company represented by Mr.R.M.Puri/Mr.K.L.Malhotra.

It is a principle of criminal jurisdiction that no innocent should be punished. Yet the prosecuting agency is trying to make a mockery of the sanctity and majesty of this principle.

26.07.07 – INNOCENCE OF ANSALS

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate concluded his arguments on behalf of Mr. Gopal Ansal and has demonstrated through various documents and witnesses the following points:

 

1. The Uphaar cinema was not in the name of any individual but the company i.e., M/s.Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd.(GPTA), later on its name was changed to M/s. Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt. Ltd.(ATCPL)

 

2. He also substantiated that the License was in the name of GPTA whose name was later on changed to ATCPL and not in the name of any individual i.e., Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal. He further demonstrated from the minutes book that Board had authorized Mr. R.M. Puri / Mr. K.L. Malhotra to deal with the licensing authorities and on the date of fire an affidavit for renewal of license was signed by Mr. R.M. Puri. Inspections of various Government Departments were got conducted by Mr. K.L. Malhotra who was authorized by the Board to do the needful.

 

MR. GOPAL ANSAL RESIGNED AS DIRECTOR IN 1988

 

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate addressed the court on the issue of re-appointment of Mr. Gopal Ansal as Additional Director of the company on 24.12.1994 which came to an end on 30.06.1995. During the course of his arguments he demonstrated that second term of Mr. Gopal Ansal as Additional Director was confined to the newly expanded business of clubs only. He further demonstrated that Mr. Gopal Ansal was present in only two board meetings out of 5 meetings during the second tenure as Additional Director for a period of around 6 months. He was never involved in any of the activities of cinema business during this period.

 

The resignation of Mr. Gopal Ansal was accepted by the Board on 30.06.1995 and thereafter he ceased to be a Director. Form-32 was submitted later on but the resignation became effective from the date of resignation as per the provisions of Company Act.

Thereafter Mr. Prem Kumar addressed the court on the issue of signing of three cheques by Mr. Gopal Ansal. In this connection he demonstrated that all the three cheqeus were issued in respect of club activities and had no concern with cinema business. Giving authorization to sign cheque or signing three cheques does not mean that Mr. Gopal Ansal was looking after day to day affairs of cinema.

Thereafter, Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate addressed the court on the minutes of meetings produced by the prosecution in evidence against Mr. Gopal Ansal. He placed the law and the judgments to substantiate that mere admission of documents on record or marking it as exhibit does not dispense with the proving of the documents. He further demonstrated that the minutes of meeting were not proved by the prosecution and as such they can not be read against Mr. Gopal Ansal.

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate, thereafter, addressed the court on the issue of day to day control and management of cinema. He demonstrated from volumes of documents that it was Mr. R.M. Puri, Whole-time Director and Mr. K.L. Malhotra, Dy. General Manager of Uphaar cinema who were corresponding and interacting regularly with various statutory authorities right from the beginning till the date of incident. He convincingly concluded his arguments establishing that Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal had no concern with cinema business or activities after 17th October, 1988.

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate then started his arguments on the issue of installation of DVB Transformer inside the cinema premises for supplying electricity to the surrounding Green Park Colony and not to supply any energy to Uphaar cinema. He demonstrated from various documents on court record that the installation was never requested by the Uphaar Management rather it was imposed and forced by DESU authorities and in forcing such installation the DESU authorities adopted various modes to mount the pressure on Uphaar Management. Initially, the pressure started with the demand of a huge built space of 45′ x 75′ which later on was reduced to the size of 15′x 10′.6″. Even the internal departmental correspondence of DESU clearly reflects the unreasonableness and pressure tactics being adopted by DESU. Mr. Prem Kumar further pointed out from various judgments and also the Electricity Supply Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, that the Electricity Authority/Board has every right of installation of electrical apparatus etc., for distribution of electricity in the private property of any person and the person on whose property the installations are made is only entitled to compensation and he can not object to such installation.

CAUSE OF FIRE

Mr. Prem Kumar demonstrated from the evidence of record that the fire on 13.06.1997 originated from the DVB transformer which resulted in serious tragedy. He further contended that the sole cause of incident was improper maintenance of DVB transformer and by no stretch of imagination the Uphaar management can be held liable for this tragedy.

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate while concluding the arguments on behalf of Mr. Gopal Ansal summarized the matter by referring to Section 304A IPC and the judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Courts and demonstrated that no case u/s 304A is made out against Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal as the direct, proximate and immediate cause of death was the fire in the DVB transformer which was incomplete control and management of DVB authorities. He once again reiterated that neither Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal were the licensee or the owner of Uphaar cinema nor they were Directors of the company which was running the cinema and consequently no role for the incident which took place on 13.06.1997 can be attributed to them.