BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF VARIOUS CASES-UPHAAR FIRE TRAGEDY
The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 5th March 2014 in the Criminal Appeal No. 597/2010 has convicted Sushil Ansal & Gopal Ansal holding them responsible for the following:
- They were more concerned with making a little more money out of the few additional seats. that were added to the cinema in the balcony rather than maintaining the required standards of safety in discharge of the common law duty but also under the provisions of the DCR 1953.
- The death of the deceased in the tragedy occurred due to the trap created Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal along with the other actors who helped them achieve that end. Had the layout of the balcony not been changed from the sanctioned plan to such an extent that access to the right hand exit was totally blocked, this tragedy would not have taken place.
- The conduct of Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal was thus in total disregard of all the safety rules meant to contain a tragedy of this kind coupled with the knowledge of the 1989 fire which had taken place earlier in the Uphaar theatre.
- The occupiers of the cinema building were not sensitive towards the demands of safety of the patrons and amply showed that the safety of the visitors to the theatre was a matter of low priority for the occupiers
- Blocking of the vertical gangway along the rightmost wall and the narrowing of the vertical gangway along the right side of the middle exit by installation of additional seats had the effect of depriving the patrons of the facility to use the right side gangway and the gangway along the middle exit for quick dispersal from the balcony.
- The closure of the right side exit in the balcony area by installation of a private eight-seater box permanently cut off access to the right side staircase and thereby violated not only the DCR 1953 but also prevented the patrons from using that exit and the right side stairway for quick dispersal from the balcony.
- The introduction of the new exit in the left wing of the balcony in lieu of the closed right side exit did not make up for the breach of Para 10 (4), First Schedule of DCR 1953 which mandates that exits on both sides of the auditorium/balcony.
- Failure to introduce fourth exit even when the total number of seats in the balcony had gone above 300 with the addition of 15 more seats installed in 1980, further compromised the safety requirements statutorily prescribed under the DCR.
- Bolting of the middle entry/exit doors leading into the foyer obstructed the flow of patrons out of the balcony exposing them to poisonous gas that spread into the hall for a longer period then what was safe for the patrons to survive.
- The bolting of the door leading from the foyer into the right side staircase and outside which had to be forced open also prevented the quick dispersal and led to a large number of causalities.
- Despite the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme court convicting the Sushil Ansal & Gopal Ansal owners/occupiers of the cinema, the victims’ families await justice even 17 years after the incident.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 5th March 2014 held that, Ansal brothers not only showed scant regard for the safety of patrons by putting up extra seats in the gangway for some extra money, but also endangered their safety by making structural changes in the theatre. But all these findings failed to give any concrete result to 17 years of effort by the victim’s family.
- A bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court differed on the quantum of sentence after concurring on their guilt under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code for negligent acts.
- The victims will now have to await the decision of the three-judge bench.
TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE MATTER
10.01.2003: CBI files an application regarding missing documents
07.03.2006: AVUT files a Crl.Misc. Application in Crl. Misc (Main Petition No. 2380/2003 in the Hon’ble High Court under section 482 of the code of criminal Procedure praying for directions for registration of a criminal case against offenders for tampering with documents in the court custody.
05.05.2006:The Hon’ble High Court passed following order:
“Delhi Police is called upon to register a case under appropriate provision of law in regard to the incident of removal/tampering with/ mutilation of the documents from the judicial records of the trial court. After the registration of the FIR, investigation shall be entrusted to an officer not below the rank of ACP who will conduct the investigation expeditiously and endeavor to conclude the same within a period three months from the date of this order. A status report shall be filed by the investigating agency before the next date of hearing i.e. 8th August 2006.”
17.05.2006: An FIR No.207/2006 is lodged by Delhi Police under Sec. 109/193/201/218/409/120B IPC under the directions of the High Court.
22.02.2007: Charge Sheet filed EOW Delhi Police in ACMM‘s Court against court Ahalmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
23.05.2007: Supplementary Charge Sheet filed enclosing GEQD Report of the documents seized from A Plus Security Agency
17.01.2008: 2nd Charge Sheet filed by EOW Delhi Police and following were arrayed asaccused:
1. Sushil Ansal 2. Gopal Ansal 3. H S Panwar 4. PP Batra 5. Anoop Singh
6. Col D V Malhotra
15.02.2008: Summons issued by ACMM Patiala House Court
24.02.2008: Sushil Ansal files revision against the Summoning Order in the Hon’ble High Court
28.04.2008: Gopal Ansal filed petition to be listed along with Crl Rev. 224/08 of Sushil Ansal
03.09.2010: Hon’ble Justice Murlidhar dismissed all the Petitions with following directions
“This Court does not find merit in any of the petitions. Each of the petitions is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. These costs will be paid to the State within a period of four weeks from today. The interim orders stand vacated. The pending applications are dismissed. The trial court records be returned to the concerned court forthwith together with a certified copy of this order.”
26.08.2013: AVUT filed a Criminal Writ Petition in High Court of Delhi with a prayer for expeditious trial . Hon’ble Court has directed the CMM Patiala House Courts to frame the charges or otherwise by 15th May 2014.
25.05.2014: Order reserved on framing of charges
31.05.2014: Charges framed against all seven accused u/s 409/109/201/120B IPC
NEXT DATE OF HEARING 09.10.2014
AMOD KANTH :SUMMONED AS AN ACCUSED IN UPHAAR FIRE TRAGEDY CASE.
11.02.2004: AVUT filed an application under section 319 for summoning Jt CP Amod Kanth as an accused for allowing additional seats in the balcony of Uphaar cinema in the year 1979.The addition of the seats allowed by Amod Kanth blocked the gangway on the right hand side of the balcony which was in contravention of rules. He also overlooked the closure of the right hand side exit which was in contravention of rules, which was converted into a family box. The closure of the gangway and the non-availability of the exit on the right hand side was the prime cause for the death of 59 innocent lives.
23.11.2007: The Ld Trial Judge vide its judgement ordered further investigation of the offences in terms of section 173(8) Cr PC.
19.12.2008: The Hon’ble High Court vide its Judgement observed that the evidence gathered and placed before the court showed that there were glaring lapses in the Licensing department, the MCD and DVB and directed CBI that so far as the directions given by the Trial Court are concerned CBI shall complete the task in time bound manner and report its conclusions to the trial court by 15.03.2009.
05.03.2009: CBI filed a Closure Report in the court of Ld ASJ stating that no criminal acts were found against any of the officials of any department other than the 16 persons charge sheeted in the main case.
03.06.2009: AVUT filed a protest Petition.
12.08.2010: Ld MM of Patiala House Courts summoned Amod Kanth to stand trial for the offence u/s 304A,337,338 IPC and section 14 of the Cinematograph Act.
26.08.2010: Amod Kanth approached the Hon’ble High Court for setting aside the said order on the ground that no sanction u/s 197 Cr PC has been obtained.
28.08.2012: The Hon’ble High Court set aside the application of Amod Kanth.
Amod Kanth has filed an SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court.
NEELAM KRISHNAMOORTHY v/s SUSHIL ANSAL & ORS u/s 188,506 & 509 IPC ( CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION & OUTRAGING MODESTY OF WOMEN)
- On a complaint given by Neelam Krishnamoorthy to the Court of Ld. ASJ Ms Mamta Sehgal Patiala House with regard to staff of Ansal’s who misbehaved and threatened her in the court premises.
- The matter was sent to the Administrative Head of the Court Ms Kamini Lau Ld ACMM.
- The Ld ACMM on the basis of the complaint summoned Sushil Ansal,Gopal Ansal,PP Batra and Praveen Sharma u/s 188,506 & 509 IPC on 19.06.2007.
- All the accused approached the Hon’ble High Court for Ex Parte stay. The same was granted on 3rd July 2007 and the matter is pending for last seven years.
- The next date of hearing is 10.07.2014 in the Hon’ble High Court.