The Hindu : New Delhi News : Uphaar case put on fast track

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jan 05, 2008
ePaper

New Delhi

New Delhi

Uphaar case put on fast track

Staff Reporter

Delhi High Court grants bail to accused Ansal brothers

Court also suspended their sentences till the disposal of their appeals
A trial court had sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment

NEW DELHI: Putting the hearing of appeals by Uphaar cinema hall owners - Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal - against their conviction in the fire tragedy case on a fast track, the Delhi High Court on Friday said it would hear them on a day-to-day basis from February 15.

Admitting the appeals, Justice H. R. Malhotra also granted bail to the two accused on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount by each of the accused.

The Court also suspended their sentences till the disposal of their appeals.

A trial court here in November had sentenced each of the accused to two years’ rigorous imprisonment in the case.

Earlier, Additional Solicitor-General P. P. Malhotra urged the Court to take up the appeals early on for hearing as the trial of the case had already eaten up a decade.

He also brought to the notice of Mr. Justice Malhotra the High Court orders directing the trial court to wrap the trial within a stipulated time and urged him to hear the appeals on a regular basis.

Sushil Ansal in his appeal said that there was a complete misreading of the material on record by the trial court judge; therefore, her findings were not sustainable as they were self-contradictory.

Referring to an excerpt of the judgment, he said the judge had referred to inspection reports of the transformer installed in the basement by the Electrical Inspector for 1995, 1996 and 1997 but at the same she had held that there were no inspection reports and the licence of the hall was renewed in collusion with the officials of various government departments.

He further argued that the entire judgment was vitiated because observations made by the trial court judge had been used as evidence for convicting him.

The trial court judge did not appreciate the fact that in case of negligence there was no scope for vicarious liability, he submitted.

In this case, acts of omission and commission by officials of various government agencies in granting sanctions and relaxations had been described as acts of the appellant and he had been held guilty for them to convict him, which was not permissible under the law, he submitted.

Gopal Ansal submitted that the Ansal Theatre and Clubotels Private Limited had the proper permission for alleged extra seats in the balcony.

He further submitted that he did not carry any liability for the tragedy as he had no control over day-to-day running of the cinema hall.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi