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!