20.08.07 – Today’s Update

Mr.Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued on the assumption that Mr.Sushil Ansal was the licensee of the Cinema.  However, it has already been demonstrated through various documentary evidence by the defence that the licensee was the company and representative of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri, Whole Time Director on the day of incident.  Infact it has already been shown by the defence that Mr.Sushil Ansal and Mr.Gopal Ansal had resigned from the Board in October, 1988 i.e. almost 10 years before to the incident. 

Shri Harish Salve, Sr.Advocate argued that the cause of fire was the DVB Transformer because of poor maintenance and bad repair by the DVB people and the smoke and toxic gases got generated from the Transformer Oil and that was the causa causan.  The Uphaar Transformer is completely intact even today. 

The prosecution argued that even if the sanction and approvals were obtained by the Uphaar Management with regard to placement of seats change of gangways and exit doors, still it needs to be examined whether the Licensing Authority has done it correctly or not.  The Defence has already demonstrated through documents and oral evidence that all the arrangements were sanctioned / approved as per rules. 

The prosecution also argued out certain deviations in the building and working of some commercial establishments in the Cinema Complex.  The defence has already demonstrated that none of the alleged deviations were violative of the Building Bye Laws and none of them were causing hindrance in egress and ingress of the patrons. 

The prosecution continued to argue that Ansal Brothers were involved in day to day running of the theatre whereas through the documentary and oral evidence, it has been demonstrated by the defence that they were not on the Board since 1988 and the Company was being run by Board of Professionals and Whole Time Director of the Company was Mr.R.M.Puri and Mr.K.L.Malhotra was its Dy.General Manager. 

If there were irregularities in the Cinema Hall, the Fire Department, MCD, PWD, etc. would not have given NOC’s and the Licensing Authority would not have renewed the Licence / Permit from time to time over the last several years. 

 The full duty of care as expected by the Management with regard to provisions of public safety, they were in place otherwise the sanctioning authority would not have given clearances. 

The whole basis of the prosecution argument has been on the wrong assumption that individual was the Licensee and not the Company.  The defence in its arguments have already placed on record a letter dated 06-03-97 wherein it has been acknowledged by the Licensing Authority that the name of the controlling company of the Uphaar Cinema has been changed from Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt.Ltd. to Ansal Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.  Mr.R.M.Puri, the Whole Time Director and Mr.K.L.Malhotra, Dy.General Manager were the Authorised Representative of the Company for operating the Uphaar Cinema and for all dealings with the Licensing Authority (copy enclosed). 

After the fire, the temporary permit was revoked by the Licensing Authority wherein it has been mentioned that the Licensee of Uphaar Cinema is M/s.Ansal. Theatres & Clubotels Pvt.Ltd.

09.08.2007 – TODAY’S UPDATE

On 6th August 2007 an application was moved on behalf of accused that the prosecution should not be allowed to reargue the case on facts and it should confine its arguments in rebuttal to the legal issues only but subject to permission of the Court. This application was argued on 9th August, 2007 by the Advocates for both the sides in light of Section 234 of the Cr PC. The learned judge after hearing the arguments reserved the decision on the said application and orally allowed the Public Prosecutor to start arguments on legal points.

The public prosecutor opened his arguments and started reading the documents. Despite being objected to by the counsels for the accused the Public Prosecutor continued to refer to the documents and argued the case on facts.

The public prosecutor also referred to a judgment which was passed by the High Court in revision filed by the accused against the charges framed. This judgment is totally irrelevant and the observations made therein have no bearing at the stage of final arguments of a Sessions trial.

In the result the prosecution is being allowed to continue its arguments in breach of the mandatory provisions contained in Cr. PC

In any case, the reiteration of the documents contents by the prosecution – have all been systematically refuted by way of evidences and proofs by defense lawyers in the past weeks. All the prosecution points were demonstrated as being baseless.

06.08.2007 – EMOTIONS MUST NOT RULE THE COURT

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.

03. 08.2007 – Search for the truth

While concluding his arguments Mr. Chopra contended that it is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. The emotions and sentiments should not be allowed to interfere in the judicial pronouncements. In support of his contention Mr. Chopra mainly relied upon two cases of the Supreme Court. In the case titled Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., the Supreme Court has made the observation, the relevant extract of which is quoted hereinbelow :-

“The Courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because of acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the Courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused.”

In another judgment titled State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Laxman Kumar, the Supreme Court has been more critic and made the following observations:-

“It is the obligation of every court to find out the truth and act according to law once the truth is discovered. In that search for truth obviously the Court has to function within the bounce set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. What happens outside the court rooms when the Court is busy in its process of adjudication is indeed in irrelevant and unless a proper cushion is provided to keep the proceedings within the Court room dissociated from the heat generated outside the Court room either through the News Media or through flutter in the public mind, the cause of justice is bound to suffer.”

“ It is the outcome of cool deliberations and the screening of the material by the informed mind of the judge that leads to determination of the lis. If the cushion is lost and the court room is allowed to vibrate with the heat generated outside it, the adjudicatory process suffers and the search for truth is stifled.”

“The Courts cannot allow any emotional and sentimental feelings to come into judicial pronouncements. Once sentimental and emotions feelings are allowed to enter the judicial mind the Judge is bound to view the evidence with a bias and in that case the conclusion may also be biased resulting in some cases in great injustice. The cases have to be decided strictly on evidence howsoever cruel or horrifying the crime may be. All possible chances of innocent man being convicted have to be ruled out. There should be no hostile atmosphere against an accused in court. A hostile atmosphere is bound to interfere in an unbiased approach as well as a decision. This has to be avoided at all costs.”

02.08.2007 – Cinema Staff Risked Life in Evacuating Patrons

All emergency lights, PA systems and fire safety measures were in full working order

 

 Mr. K.C.Chopra, Advocate for the defense demonstrated before the Court that cinema staff Maj. Ajit Chaudhary was actively involved in assisting patrons alongwith other staff members. He alongwith other staff helped the patrons in going outside the Cinema Hall. In this process large number of patrons were rescued. During the rescue operation Maj. Chaudhary himself became unconscious by inhaling the smoke and was admitted to the AIIMS by the Police where he received the treatment. This fact is clearly borne out from the evidence on Court record and the medical certificate issued by AIIMS. He further pointed out that it is absolutely unfair to charge the Uphaar staff by putting blame on them that they did not assist the patrons in finding the escape route from cinema hall.

Mr. Chopra also demonstrated from the evidence of the witnesses that the emergency lights, footlights, exit lights and public address system were in order on 13.06.1997. He read out the Inspection Reports of Fire Department Official, who confirmed that all fire safety measures were provided in the cinema hall.

He, however, pointed out that responsibility and liability for safety of the patrons and also for footlights, emergency lights, etc. was of the Whole Time Director, Mr. R.M. Puri and Deputy General Manager, Mr. K.L. Malhotra, who were authorized by the resolution of Board of Directors of Cinema owning company and pursuant to said authority they were looking after the day-to-day affairs and management of Uphaar Cinema. The Ansal name does not even feature in this.

31.07.07 – Special Public Prosecutor – Shows Bias Towards Uphaar Cinema Staff

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.

26.07.07 – INNOCENCE OF ANSALS

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.

25.07.07 – DEFENCE DEMONSTRATES ANSALS INNOCENCE

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.

17.07.07 – CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT LICENSEE WAS COMPANY AND NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate continued his arguments and demonstrated that Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a special Act which provides complete machinery including the grant of license as well as punishment for its violation. He further argued that where there is a special legislation providing complete machinery, the general legislation i.e., the Indian Penal Code will not apply. In support of his arguments he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court titled “Raj Kapoor Vs. Laxman”. Relying upon this judgment he demonstrated that in view of this judgment the present prosecution of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal as well as the Licensee Company is prohibited.

Mr. Prem Kumar further argued that in the year 1979 the licensing authority himself inspected the cinema in compliance of the directions issued by Delhi High Court and after inspection allowed the retention of seats, gangways and exit doors in substantial compliance of Cinematograph Rules, 1953. He further argued that since the licensing authority has given a clean chit and found every thing in accordance with the rules as such the licensee can not at all be held guilty.

It was also argued and demonstrated that it was the company i.e., Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd., who was the licensee. He also pointed out and demonstrated from court record that in the year 1979 the license was misplaced somewhere in transit and an application for issuance of duplicate license was given by the company and not by any individual. In substance he tried to establish that it was the company who was licensee and not Mr. Sushil Ansal. Since the license was in accordance with the rules and regulations, rightly the prosecution has not made the licensor an accused.

Earlier Mr. R.K. Naseem had shown from the judicial file that from 1993 onwards the applications were moved by Mr. K.L Malhotra, General Manager and affidavits for renewal of annual licenses of the cinema were signed by Mr. RM Puri, the Whole Time Director of the Cinema. The Chief Investigating Officer Mr. R.S. Khatri also in his deposition in the court had confirmed that the company was the owner of the cinema as well as the licensee and not any individual.

16.07.07 – Absolutely no evidence to show any negligence on the part of Ex-Director Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal

It was a tragic accident caused by fire in the DVB transformer

Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate today started the arguments on behalf of Mr. Gopal Ansal. Commencing his arguments, he contended that the Courts should not be influenced with sentiments and emotions, howsoever horrible the offence may be. All possible chances of innocent men being convicted have to be completely ruled out. He argued that in criminal matters, the Judges should not be swayed away by the sentiments and emotions rather they should confine themselves to the facts and evidence on record of the case. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court titled as State V/s Laxman Kumar.

Thereafter, Mr. Prem Kumar argued that to constitute an offence U/s 304A IPC, there should be a gross negligence that is negligence of a very high degree. In this connection, he placed reliance upon the speech of Lord Maclaulay which has been accepted in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab. It is significant to point out that Lord Macaulay was the framer of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Prem Kumar argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show any negligence on the part of Ex-Director Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal. It was a case of sheer accident. All the Rules and regulations regarding placements of seats, gangways, Exit doors were as approved by the various concerned authorities. All requisites fire safety installations and requirements were in place and functional and were duly approved in writing by the fire department. Unfortunately, the cause of fire was the poor maintenance of DVB transformers. The burning of the transformer oil generated lot of smoke and toxic gases which resulting in due to death by asphyxia. The cinema was running under a valid permit/ license.