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.
