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.
