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.

25.07.07 – DEFENCE DEMONSTRATES ANSALS INNOCENCE

Ansals should not be prosecuted

Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate addressed the court, on the second limb of charge i.e. ownership of Uphaar Cinema. He referred to various documents on record and witnesses to establish that Mr.Gopal Ansal or Mr.Sushil Ansal were not the owners of Uphaar Cinema. He also referred to various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act to demonstrate that if there is any inconsistency between oral and documentary evidence which prevails. Through documents he demonstrated that it is the company i.e.M/s Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd., which was renamed as M/s Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd., is one and only the owner of Uphaar Cinema. He further demonstrated that if the company is the owner then Mr.Gopal Ansal or Mr.Sushil Ansal cannot be prosecuted.

Non-involvement demonstrated

Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate addressed the court on the issue of pre-appointment of Mr.Gopal Ansal as Additional Director of the company on 24.12.94 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.

Whose transformer caught fire?

Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate continued his arguments on installation of the DVB Transformer within the premises of Uphaar Cinema. He demonstrated from various judgments of different High Courts as well as Supreme Court that under the Electricity Supply Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, the Electricity Authority/Board has every right of installation of electrical apparatus, poles, wires, etc., for distribution of electricity in the private property of any person. He further demonstrated from the judgments that the person on whose property the installations are made is only entitled to compensation and he cannot object to such installations.

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 13.06.97 can be attributed to them.

17.07.07 – CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT LICENSEE WAS COMPANY AND NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate continued his arguments and demonstrated that Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a special Act which provides complete machinery including the grant of license as well as punishment for its violation. He further argued that where there is a special legislation providing complete machinery, the general legislation i.e., the Indian Penal Code will not apply. In support of his arguments he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court titled “Raj Kapoor Vs. Laxman”. Relying upon this judgment he demonstrated that in view of this judgment the present prosecution of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal as well as the Licensee Company is prohibited.

Mr. Prem Kumar further argued that in the year 1979 the licensing authority himself inspected the cinema in compliance of the directions issued by Delhi High Court and after inspection allowed the retention of seats, gangways and exit doors in substantial compliance of Cinematograph Rules, 1953. He further argued that since the licensing authority has given a clean chit and found every thing in accordance with the rules as such the licensee can not at all be held guilty.

It was also argued and demonstrated that it was the company i.e., Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd., who was the licensee. He also pointed out and demonstrated from court record that in the year 1979 the license was misplaced somewhere in transit and an application for issuance of duplicate license was given by the company and not by any individual. In substance he tried to establish that it was the company who was licensee and not Mr. Sushil Ansal. Since the license was in accordance with the rules and regulations, rightly the prosecution has not made the licensor an accused.

Earlier Mr. R.K. Naseem had shown from the judicial file that from 1993 onwards the applications were moved by Mr. K.L Malhotra, General Manager and affidavits for renewal of annual licenses of the cinema were signed by Mr. RM Puri, the Whole Time Director of the Cinema. The Chief Investigating Officer Mr. R.S. Khatri also in his deposition in the court had confirmed that the company was the owner of the cinema as well as the licensee and not any individual.

16.07.07 – Absolutely no evidence to show any negligence on the part of Ex-Director Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal

It was a tragic accident caused by fire in the DVB transformer

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate today started the arguments on behalf of Mr. Gopal Ansal. Commencing his arguments, he contended that the Courts should not be influenced with sentiments and emotions, howsoever horrible the offence may be. All possible chances of innocent men being convicted have to be completely ruled out. He argued that in criminal matters, the Judges should not be swayed away by the sentiments and emotions rather they should confine themselves to the facts and evidence on record of the case. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court titled as State V/s Laxman Kumar.

Thereafter, Mr. Prem Kumar argued that to constitute an offence U/s 304A IPC, there should be a gross negligence that is negligence of a very high degree. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the speech of Lord Maclaulay which has been accepted in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab. It is significant to point out that Lord Macaulay was the framer of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Prem Kumar argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show any negligence on the part of Ex-Director Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal. It was a case of sheer accident. All the Rules and regulations regarding placements of seats, gangways, Exit doors were as approved by the various concerned authorities. All requisites fire safety installations and requirements were in place and functional and were duly approved in writing by the fire department. Unfortunately, the cause of fire was the poor maintenance of DVB transformers. The burning of the transformer oil generated lot of smoke and toxic gases which resulting in due to death by asphyxia. The cinema was running under a valid permit/ license.

13.07.07 – CONCLUSIVE DEMONSTRATION OF SUSHIL ANSAL’S NON-INVOLVEMENT IN UPHAAR CINEMA

Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr.Advocate meticulously dissects the case against Mr.Sushil Ansal with hard documentary evidences. Infact the most important fact which has emerged is that Mr.Sushil Ansal was not the Director or licensee of Uphaar Cinema, and that he had resigned 10 years before the unfortunate incident. He demonstrated that legally and factually, there is no basis for a case of negligence against him as an individual.

Lets recap the arguments that have been produced by eminent lawyers like Mr.Dwivedi and Mr.Naseem are conclusive in demonstrating the non-involvement of Mr.Sushil Ansal in this case.

1. Supreme Court rulings demonstrate absence of criminal negligence

Mr. Naseem has concluded the arguments by referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court of India. In the judgments referred by Mr. Naseem it has been held that the act of a person should be the direct cause of death and it should not be a remote cause. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that even if there is violation of rules and regulations, it does not constitute any offence much less a culpable or criminal negligence.

2. DVB transformer the cause of the fire and not uphaar transformer

The biggest truth which may surprise many people is that the transformer that caught fire had no connection with Uphaar Cinema but was owned and maintained solely by DVB and was supplying electricity to Green Park colony. The transformer that supplied electricity to Uphaar Cinema is absolutely intact even today.

3. All seats,gangways and exits were in order

Another great revelation and truth which will blow out any myth regarding the seating arrangements, gangways and exit doors, etc., is a clear fact that all arrangements were in total accordance with Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 and were duly inspected by several authorities like PWD, Fire Department, Zonal Health Officer of MCD and other licensing authorities who visited the Cinema Hall several times. Mr. Naseem produced all approvals and legally authorized and sanctioned reports to prove the case.

4. Fire safety measures totally intact

The third myth surrounded fire safety measures. Once again it was demonstrated that all fire safety measures were complete and in working order as firmly reported by the authorities in their reports after which proper licenses were granted to operate the cinema.

5. Mr. Sushil Ansal was NOT a Director and NOT involved in managing the Cinema

The most important fact of all is that Mr. Sushil Ansal or Mr. Gopal Ansal were not the directors of Uphaar Cinema nor were they were representatives on the day of the incident. It was the company that was the owner and not any individual. It is imperative for all to note that Mr. R.K. Naseem, Advocate systematically argued by presentation of documents that Mr. Sushil Ansal had resigned from Directorship in 1988 – 10 years before the incident. The Board of Directors had in fact spelt out the responsibilities to be performed by different Managers. Mr. Ansal had no connection with the day to day management and affairs of the cinema. Yet one continues to see and read that Mr. Sushil Ansal was in some way involved with this incident, it seems amazing that inspite of hardcore evidence and documentation provided by Mr. R.K. Naseem to the court, there could be any doubt about the unfortunate victimization of Mr. Sushil Ansal in this case.

6. Deviations were not violative of Builiding Bye-laws

Prosecution’s charge that some RS Joists were fixed at 8’ height in the Stilt Floor, some commercial establishments were operating from Cinema Hall, cars were parked in stilt floor, were all proved to be incorrect as the above deviations are illegally permitted. Few partition walls were in the basement though it was being used for cycle, scooter and auto-rikshaw parking.

Mr. Naseem went through each points of the above charges and through documentary evidence of Building Bye-laws and prosecution witnesses proved that the above are as per Building Bye-laws and not violative of Building Bye-laws.

7. Mr.Sushil Ansal was not the Licensee

License of the cinema was in the name of the company and not Mr. Sushil Ansal. The person representing the licensee was Mr.R.M. Puri/Mr. K.L. Malhotra.

We must all wake up to the truth of the matter! It may not be sensational; it may not involve known personalities. It may not grab sensation-loving audiences. But the truth is the truth especially with hard evidences in court makes one think whether we have unnecessarily maligned the Ansals in the Uphaar Cinema case.

Will justice at last be done? Will 10 years of suffering, bad image and harassment for the innocent persons like Mr.Sushil Ansal finally come to an end? We certainly hope so and after analyzing the arguments one can only feel sorry for people who have been unduly victimized. Let the hard facts speak for themselves!

 

12.07.07 – Demonstrated – Ansal’s Non- Involvement

POWER TO MORTGAGE FOR RAISING LOANS

Mr. Dwivedi a Senior Advocate continued his arguments today in Uphaar case and demonstrated through documentary evidence and Minutes of the Meetings of Board of Directors that Green Park Theaters & Associates Pvt. Ltd. (GPTA) had expanded into other lines of businesses like, buying plots for development, running of clubs and investment in shares and debentures. This was in addition to cinema business.

The land on which Uphaar cinema is built belongs to Ansal Housing and Estates Pvt. Ltd. This company has given lease hold rights to GPTA Pvt. Ltd for 99 years. The cinema was built and is owned by GPTA Pvt. Ltd. and not by Ansal Housing and Estates Pvt. Ltd. The Board of Directors of GPTA Pvt. Ltd. in its meeting of 1986 authorised some of the Officers and Directors of the company to mortgage some of its properties to raise loans from banks and other financial institutions to finance the expansion programme of the company which Green Park had agreed to develop through Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.

Subsequently in the Board Meetings of 1988, 1989 and 1991, the Board passed resolutions to extend the lien on the properties already mortgaged to get the limits enhanced according to the value assessed by the lending institutions. Such resolutions passed by the Board of Directors for raising finances for diversification into other businesses does not in any way show that Sushil Ansal or Gopal Ansal were directly or indirectly controlling the day to day affairs of the cinema as argued and demonstrated by Mr. Dwivedi.

Application for renewal of cinema licenses:

After Mr. Sushil Ansal resigned from the Board of Directors in 1988 all application for renewal of licenses were signed by Mr. R.M. Puri whole time Director of the company and Mr. K.L. Malhotra on behalf of the licensee company GPTA Pvt. Ltd. Only in the year 1992 Mr. Sushil Ansal had inadvertently signed one application/affidavit requesting for renewal of the license on behalf of the company. This was rectified in 1993 when Mr. R.M. Puri/Mr. K.L. Malhotra signed applications and affidavits for renewal. This continued till 1997 the year of occurrence of the incidence. Argued by Mr. Dwivedi.

Special Invitee

Mr. Sushil Ansal was invited only 4 times out of 43 Board meetings in 9 years as a special invitee to seek his advice on expansion and growth of new businesses like clubs, property development and other investments. Special invitee does not mean that he was a director of the company. In 1988 Mr. Sushil Ansal resigned from the Board of Directors of the company due to his pre occupation and busy schedule with other businesses and therefore could not devote time to the cinema business and tendered his resignation which was duly accepted by the Board of Directors, i.e. 9 years before the fire incident.

Mr. Dwivedi also referred to Section 78 and Section 79 of IPC. Pursuant to these sections he demonstrated that the order for retaining seats, gangways and exits in the balcony was passed by the licensing authority in pursuance of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in 1979. As such the company was protected under Section 78 in retention of seats, gangways and exit doors. Since the sanction of seats, gangways and exit doors were as per the Cinematograph Act & Rules there is no case of negligence made out under Section 304-A.

Mr. Dwivedi then addressed the Court on the issue of negligence. He demonstrated that to attract the criminal liability the degree of negligence should be very high and gross and should be direct and efficient cause of death. Contributory negligence cannot be considered in this respect. He demonstrated that there is no evidence that any act of Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal was direct and efficient cause of the death.

11.07.07 – DEMONSTRATED-ANSALS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY NOT INVOLVED

Senior Advocate, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi dealt with the various issues raised by the prosecution and effectively dealt with them through documentary evidence and the legal provisions. Today he dealt with the following issues:

1. Shareholders are not the owners

He emphatically pointed out through various Supreme Court judgments that the liabilities, offenses, frauds attributable to a company cannot be shifted to the shareholders. The company is a juristic person distinct from its shareholders. In the case of Uphaar, since the license was issued in the name of the company and not in the name of any individual, therefore under the law, Company being a juristic person should have been made an accused, which has not been done in this case.

 

2. Signing of the cheque

Merely because Sushil Ansal had signed a cheque of Rs. 50 lacs, on behalf of the company for purchase of shares, does not mean that he was looking after the day to day affairs of the company. In 9 years from the date of resignation from the company in the year 1988, he had signed only one cheque. There were several other signatories to the account who were issuing several cheques everyday concerning the day to day running of the cinema business. Therefore a person who has signed only one cheque in 9 years cannot be said to be looking after the day to day management of the cinema.

The company apart from running cinema had also expanded into other businesses like purchase of land, owning and running clubs and investment in shares of other companies. Different accounts were opened for different businesses of the company and different signatories were assigned to different accounts. There were several signatories to the accounts nominated by the board of directors to sign cheques upto unlimited amounts. ‘The company’ was run by professionals who were on the board. It is unfair on part of the prosecution to gun at an individual with a pre-determined and biased mind.

 

3. Special Invitee

Mr. Ansal was invited 4 times in 9 years as a special invitee to some of the board meetings to seek his advice on expansion and growth of new businesses like clubs, property development and other investments. Special invitee does not mean that he was a director of the company. In 1988 Mr. Ansal resigned from the board of directors of the company due to his pre occupation and busy schedule with other businesses and therefore could not devote time to the cinema business and tendered his resignation which was duly accepted by the board of directors.

 

4. Due to the above reasons the prosecution has tried to project that Sushil and Gopal Ansal were therefore controlling the affairs of the cinema and were the heart and soul behind it. Mr. Dwivedi very emphatically pointed out that in criminal law personal acts of the individuals have to be considered at the time of the offence. Lifting of the corporate veil may be applicable in the civil jurisprudence but under criminal law under section 304 a, direct and proximate act of the accused person is to be determined to establish criminal liability. How can the act of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal be deemed to be the direct and proximate cause of incident of fire in Uphaar Cinema?

 

 

10.07.07 – Justice on the right track!

As Mr. R.K. Naseem, Advocate for the defense concluded his arguments on the Uphaar Cinema case, one can finally see justice moving in the right direction. As the 10 day defense arguments on behalf of Mr. Sushil Ansal comes to a close, it has become evidently clear that Mr. Sushil Ansal was unduly victimized in courts over the past 10 years. Indeed justice should be done and if any are guilty of negligence in this unfortunate accident than they should be justly punished. But until proven guilty the innocent victims should not be made to unduly suffer. For 10 years Mr. Ansal has gone through mental and physical stress and strain and has been victimized in this case whereas it has been made abundantly clear and demonstrated through documented hard evidence that he was not in any way responsible for this accident.

09.06.2007 – No criminal negligence demonstrated in the Uphaar case

Myths of wrong doings at Uphaar Cinema Blown to Smithereens! (continues…)

As Mr. R.K. Naseem , Advocate for the defence continues his arguments on the Uphaar Cinema case, it is becoming evidently clear day by day, as the hearing continues, that Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal are being unduly ‘victimized’.

1. Supreme Court rulings demonstrate absence of criminal negligence

Today Mr. Naseem has concluded the arguments by referring to the various judgements of the Supreme Court of India. In the judgements referred by Mr. Naseem it has been held that the act of a person should be the direct cause of death and it should not be a remote cause. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that even if there is violation of rules and regulations, it does not constitute any offence much less a culpable or criminal negligence