ORDER

Subramonium Prasad, J. - Vide the present petitions, the Petitioners seek to challenge the Order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, in Crl. Appeals No. 89/2021, 90/2021, 91/2021, 92/2021 & 95/2021, rejecting the applications of the Petitioners herein under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence during the pendency of Appeal.

1. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. For a better understanding of the instant petitions, it is imperative to narrate the backdrop of the entire episode, which is stated as under:

A. The genesis of the entire proceedings stems from the devastating fire that occurred in Uphaar Cinema on 13.06.1997 which resulted in the death of 59 people due to asphyxia and caused injuries to more than 100 people. Initially the investigation was conducted by Delhi Police and later on it was transferred to the CBI which registered a case, being case No. RC-3(S)/97/SIC.IV/New Delhi. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 15.11.1997 against 16 persons, including the Petitioners herein. There was delay in trial and a petition, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 353/2002, was filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (hereinafter, "AVUT") before this Court for a direction to expedite the trial. This Court vide Order dated 04.04.2002 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 353/2002, titled as Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., directed the Ld. Trial Court to conduct the trial for ten days in a month from May 2002 onwards, except for June 2002. It was directed that the Ld. Trial Court shall adjust its calendar suitably in consultation with the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, if need be, to explore that no other matter was taken up on the fixed dates. CBI was directed to take steps to ensure that sufficient numbers of witnesses were present and available on the dates fixed for prosecution evidence. The Trial Court was directed to complete the examination of prosecution witnesses on a day-to-day basis. It was also directed that no adjournments would be granted for non-availability of a defence counsel resulting in deferring of the cross-examination of a prosecution witness and in that event, it would be open to the Ld. Trial Court to take recourse to various options in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C, including closure of cross-examination or cancellation of bail of the accused persons. It was directed that the trial shall be completed by 15.12.2002.

B. Material on record discloses that during the examination of PW-33 (Mr. T. S. Sharma - ADO, Delhi Fire Service), it was found that certain documents which had been marked and which had to be exhibited were found to be torn/mutilated. On 13.01.2003, an application was filed by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor bringing to the knowledge of the Court that important documents that were seized by the investigating agencies during the course of investigation, which were part of the charge-sheet and judicial record, were missing/mutilated and had been tampered with. On 20.01.2003, after scrutinizing all the papers, the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge stating that since certain documents in the Court file had been torn and were missing, therefore, permission must be given for leading secondary evidence. The application was allowed on 31.01.2003 and the prosecution was granted permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the following documents which were found to be missing/mutilated in the Court file:

a) Documents No. D-20 (half-torn) which is a Seizure Memo dated 18.07.1997 dealing with the seizure of following documents :-

i. Register of Director of Green Park Theatres;

ii. Register of Members;

iii. Register of Contract under Section 301 of the Companies Act;

iv. Register of Directors of shareholding and shareholders;

v. Register of share transfer;

vi. Share capital ledger; vii. Counter foil register;

viii. Original letter with respe