( 1 ) MORNING of June 13, 3997 was as bright as ever but the evening turned out to be the darkest for those whose kith and kin had gone to the matinee show at Uphaar Cinema. A fire in a transformer emitted thick smoke and toxic gases, which asphyxiated 59 patrons to death besides injuring over 100 in the balcony of the cinema. The agony, grief and the sorrow of those who lost their nears and dears in this tragedy can never be adequately compensated but the law enforcement agencies and justice delivery system come under a heavy duty to find out the cause of the incident, persons responsible for the cause and then proceed against them all in accordance with law.

( 2 ) IN Crl. R. 238/2001 filed on behalf of petitioner Sh, Sushil Ansal former Managing Director of m/s. Green Park Theatres Associated Private Limited, which had built and established Uphaar Cinema, the prayer is to discharge him of the charges framed against him by the trial Court under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 of Indian Penal Code and section 14 of Cinematograph Act, 1952. In crl. R. 175/2001 also filed by Sh. N. S. Chopra, Manager of uphaar Cinema, the prayer is for discharge. He has been charged by the trial Court under Section 304 read with Section 36 Indian Penal Code. Crl. R. 270/2001 has been filed by association of Victims of Uphaar tragedy with a prayer to charge Sh. Sushil Ansal and Sh. Gopal Ansal under section 304 Indian Penal Code also in addition to the charges already framed against them.

( 3 ) I have heard Sh. Ram Jethmalani, Senior advocate on behalf of petitioner Sh. Sushil Ansal, sh. R. K. Naseem, Advocate for petitioner Sh. N. S. Chopra and Sh. K. T. S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate on behalf of the association of Victims. Sh. Harish Salve, Solicitor general of India has made submissions on behalf of the state represented through Central Bureau of investigation.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the incident resulting in the death of 59 and injuries to about hundred patrons watching a movie in the matinee show of uphaar Cinema had taken place on account of a fire in delhi Vidyut Board transformer at about 5. 00 p. m. The oil started leaking from the transformer and spread towards the nearby open area where vehicles were being parked unauthorisedly. The vehicles which caught fire, produced dense smoke and toxic gases which entered the cinema building primarily on account of the fact that an unauthorised wall had been raised near this open space. This wall obstructed the flow of the smoke and gases into the open. It is also alleged that the other transformer which was supplying electricity to the cinema was switched off ass a result of which there was total darkness in the balcony. The patrons were unable to find their way out as the emergency lights were not working, P. A. system was not operational, required gangways leading to exit doors were not available and out of the two stair-cases, one was full of smoke and gases and the other had obstructions which made it impossible For the patrons to escape. No help came from the cinema staff or management. Some of the patrons made frantic calls on their mobiles to their families for help but none could come and slowly many of them became unconscious or dropped dead because of suffocation.

( 5 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner Sh. Sushil ansal was the person who was primarily looking after the functioninig of the cinema and as such, he was guilty of gross negligence in the matter of compliance of rules and regulations relating to the safety of the patrons. It was during his tenure only that this high voltage transformer was put up in the cinema building knowing fully well that its presence in the cinema complex was hazardous. However, it was allowed 16 be installed for the reason that it was to supply electricity to some other parts of the cinema building where the tenants of the petitioner s company were the consumers. It is also alleged that various permissions and renewals