Senior Advocate, Mr.Prem Kumar addressed the court in his concluding arguments on the Uphaar Cinema case. He was very clear about the fact that in the legal jurisprudence, emotions cannot and must not rule the court judgments. Courts are hallowed institutions, the majesty of which cannot be defiled by the biased emotions or by any popular instigation propagated by any interested parties. In our civilized society all we have to keep us free & democratic, is the law of the land. It is the constitutional right of every Indian citizen to be tried by courts adhering to the Indian Penal Code which lay down specifically on what basis a person can be deemed as guilty or innocent. If the law clearly finds a person innocent no amount of drumming up of popular sentiments can victimize that individual. The reverse is as true.
The recent judgment on Sanjay Dutt has clearly demonstrated the sanctity of the law inspite of a mountain of pressure by the media and his numerous fans. Advocate Prem Kumar quoted many cases to strengthen his point. That is why it is imperative that the closing arguments of the defense in the Uphaar Cinema case be exposed to the public so that they are aware of the facts of the case and not just the superficial hoopla created. Let’s face facts:
1. The company called Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. later renamed as ATCL was the licensee and was responsible for Uphaar Cinema not any individual.
2. It is also very important to note that the Ansals had resigned from the directorship in 1988, 10 years before the incident.
3. The transformer which was the main cause of fire belonged to DVB and not to Uphaar Cinema. The transformer owned by Uphaar Cinema is still intact.
4. Eminent advocate Pt.Naseem, step by step and detail by detail, demonstrated that all seating arrangements and gangways, etc were in perfect compliance with the rules and regulations and building bylaws of the time. There was no violation whatsoever. Any changes, deviations were all in accordance with the competent authorities who had cleared Uphaar Cinema alongwith 42 other cinemas of Delhi.
5. Pt.Naseem also clearly demonstrated by way of witnesses that fire safety measures were complete and in working order at the time as clearly reported by licensing authorities in granting clearances to operate the cinema.
Eminent Advocate Prem Kumar concluded and 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 in complete 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’.
Let the law take its course in an unbiased, fair and just manner. The truth may not attract a lot of sensational headlines, to titillate the public at large but atleast it will prove the innocence of people like the Ansals who have been suffering like victims for over 10 years. It was a tragic sad accident. Let the matter rest there. Let us not continue to create suffering for the innocents.
