SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
SUSHIL ANSAL – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
WITH
GOPAL ANSAL – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.598 OF 2010
WITH
HARSARUP PANWAR – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.599 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.600-602 OF 2010, 605 OF 2010, 606 OF 2010 AND 613 OF 2010
Decided On : 22-09-2015
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-A – Sentence – Uphaar cinema mishap – High Court awarding one year RI – Maximum sentence prescribed is two years – In view of the tragedy claiming lives of 95 people and injuring more than 100 people sentence awarded by High Court inadequate – Proportionate sentence – Sentence enhanced to two year – Fine of 30 crores imposed on each appellant in lieu of additional sentence of one year – Fine if paid within three months sentence shall be reduced to period already undergone – On failure to pay fine, appellants to serve full sentence of two years. (Para 19)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599/2010:-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-A – Sentence – Uphaar cinema mishap – High Court awarding one year RI – Maximum sentence provided is two years – In view of the tragedy claiming lives of 95 people and injuring more than 100 people sentence awarded by High Court inadequate – Proportionate sentence – Sentence enhanced to two year – Fine of 10 lakhs imposed on appellant H.S. Panwar in lieu of additional sentence of one year – Fine if paid within three months sentence shall be reduced to period already undergone – On failure to pay fine, appellants to serve full sentence of two years. (Para 21)
Facts of the case:
The two Judges of the Bench hearing the appeal (Uphaar Cinema case) upheld the conviction but differed on quantum of sentence. Therefore the matter has been placed before the three Judges Bench.
The case pertains to the Uphaar Cinema mishap which claimed lives of 59 persons besides injuries to nearly 100 others.
Appellants, owners of the cinema hall, have been convicted of the offences under Sections 304-A/337/338 read with Section 36 IPC and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
High Court had sentenced the appellants with one year RI. While T.S. Thakur, J, concurred with the sentence imposed by the High Court, Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. imposed additional sentence of one year and fine of Rs.50 crores on each of the appellants in lieu of the additional sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Gyan Sudha Mishra, J. took the right view.
Result: Appeals disposed of as partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.597 AND 598 OF 2010
1. The aforestated appeals had been initially heard by two Hon’ble Judges of this Court. Though the order of conviction had been upheld by the learned Judges, on the subject of sentence the learned Judges differed. Justice T.S. Thakur passed the following order on the sentence:
“(i) Criminal Appeal Nos.597 of 2010 and 598 of 2010 filed by Sushil Ansal (A-1) and Gopal Ansal (A-2) respectively are hereby dismissed upholding the conviction and sentences awarded to them.”
Whereas Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra passed the following order:
“44. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, I am of the view that in lieu of the enhanced sentence of a period of one year which I allow in the appeals preferred by AVUT and CBI, the same be substituted with a fine of Rs 100 crores (one hundred crores) to be shared and paid by A-1 Sushil Ansal and A-2 Gopal Ansal in equal measure i.e. Rs 50 crores each and Rs 100 crores in all, and shall be paid by way of a demand draft issued in the name of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank and shall be spent on the construction of a trauma centre to be built in the memory of Uphaar Victims at any suitable place at Dwarka in New Delhi as we are informed that Dwarka is an accident-prone area but does not have any governmental infrastructure or public health care centre to treat accident victims. For this purpose, the State of Delhi, as DVB which is/was an instrumentality of the State, shall allot at least five acres of land or more at any suitable location at Dwarka within a period of four months of this judgment and order on which a trauma centre for accident victims along with a Super speciality department/ward for burn injuries shall be constructed to be known as the “Victims of Uphaar Memorial Trauma Centre” or any other name that may be suggested by AVUT/Uphaar Victims’ Association. This trauma centre shall be treated as an extension centre of the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which is close to Uphaar Theatre and was the accident site which is hard-pressed for space and desperately needs expansion considering the enormous number of patients who go there for treatment. The trauma centre to be built at Dwarka shall be treated as an extension centre of the Safdarjung Hospital to be constructed by the respondent-accused Sushil Ansal and respondent-accused Gopal Ansal under the supervision of the Building Committee to be constituted which shall include Secretary General of the Supreme Court, Registrar Administration of the Supreme Court along with a representative of AVUT nominated by the Association and the Hospital Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi within a period of two years from the date of allotment of the plot of land by the State of Delhi which shall be run and administered by the authorities of the Safdarjung Hospital Administration as its extension centre for accident victims.”
2. In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned judges regarding quantum of sentence, the matter has been placed before us in pursuance of the following order dated 5.03.2014 :-
“4. Criminal Appeals No. 597, 598 and 599 of 2010 filed by the appellants in those appeals and Criminal Appeals No. 605, 606 and 613 of 2010 filed by the State and Criminal Appeals No. 600-602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy to the extent the said appeals involve the question of quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convicted appellants in the appeals mentioned above shall stand referred to a three-Judge Bench”.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also carefully gone through that portion of the judgment, whereby the sentence has been imposed upon the Appellants.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the record pertaining to the case, we find that the root cause of the fire was 1000 KVA transform
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.