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.
