SUSHIL ANSAL Vs. STATE THROUGH CBI
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 05,2014
SUSHIL ANSAL
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
EMPRESS OF INDIA V. IDU BEG ILR [REFERRED TO]HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN EMPEROR V. OMKAR RAMPRATAP [REFERRED TO]
R. V. BATEMAN [REFERRED TO]
MCLENAN V. SEGAR [REFERRED TO]
LOCHGELLY IRON AND COAL CO. LTD. V. M 'MULLAN [REFERRED TO]
HAZELDINE V. C.A. DAW AND SON LTD. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
HARTWELL V. GRAYSON ROLLO AND CLOVER DOCKS LIMITED AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BROWN V. B AND F THEATRES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
JK INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS V. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS [REFERRED TO]
READ V. J. LYONS AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GLASGOW CORP V. MUIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. V. TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GRANT V. SUN SHIPPING CO. LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
CHAJJU RAM V. RADHEY SHAM [REFERRED TO]
R. V. GURPHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF DELHI,DELHI V. ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS FOR UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GURBACHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MACHANDER VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
WILLIE WILLIAM SLANEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K C MATHEW VS. STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
S VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR VS. E V RAMASWAMI NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
JAI DEV HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BIRICHH BHUIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMEDALLI RANGAWALLA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHISH SINGH DHALIWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BHALCHANDRA WAMAN PATHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SULEMAN RAHIMAN MULANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOM SHERIOR IRANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHALCHANDRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHALCHANDRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KANTILAL CHANDULAL MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN CHAND VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
S N HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMBALAL D BHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAPIL DEO SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR KAUR DALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAINARA KHATOON 1 VS. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KAPOOR VS. LAXMAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
SHAM SUNDER VS. PURAN [REFERRED TO]
BALARAM SWAIN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
M O SHAMSUDHIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KESHUB MAHINDRA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SHAMNSAHEB M MULTTANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. DHARAMPAL [REFERRED TO]
LALLAN RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. GHANSHYAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DEO NARAIN MANDAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE N C T OF DELHI VS. NAVJOT SANDHU ALIAS AFSAN GURU [REFERRED TO]
JACOB MATHEW VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S M S PHARMACEUTICALS LTD VS. NEETA BHALLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. SANGRAM [REFERRED TO]
RADHA MOHAN SINGH ALIAS LAL SAHEB VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
DILIP S DAHANUKAR VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PAL VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GLAXO INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
CBI VS. KESHUB MAHINDRA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ARIF ALIAS ASHFAQ VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AMITAVA BANERJEE ALIAS AMIT ALIAS BAPPA BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE TR P S LODHI COLONY VS. SANJEEV NANDA [REFERRED TO]
ISHERDAS SAHNI AND BROS VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CHANDRAPRAKASH KESHAVDEO SHINGHANIYA [REFERRED TO]
JOHN ONI AKERELE VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
P.D. AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-20] [REFERRED TO]TEJRAV UTTAMRAV RANIT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2024-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUMANTH RAMAMOORTHY AND ORS. VS. THE STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-566] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJAN LAL SHARMA VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL CHACKO AND ORS. VS. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUMATHI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-267] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
SANIA DHANWAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-263] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWAN KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
AMOD KUMAR KANTH VS. ASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
S KANNAN VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KESHARWANI VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
TULARAM BHATPAHRI VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2023-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANTHRAYAPPA AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ YADAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-372] [REFERRED TO]
M SRINIVAS S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY YELAHANKA TRAFFIC POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
RITU W/O DINESH MALOO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR.PSO PS TAHSIL, NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2024-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEESH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SUREN GURUNG VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2018-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-583] [REFERRED]
KAPIL KUMAR AHLUWALIA VS. SUNITA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-289] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
S. JAI SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-465] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
BARUA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN KUMAR SINGH, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAZZAK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-320] [REFERRED TO]
S.SUGUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY VS. SUSHIL ANSAL [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
MIOT HOSPITALS VS. VENKATA RAMANAIAH [LAWS(MAD)-2022-2-242] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAS CHANDRA SAHA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE OF NCT [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
ARULANANDHAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-213] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND JAISWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-256] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR JATIA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA VERMA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM GAS CO LTD VS. UMA KANTA KALITA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
NITINCHANDRA SOMNATH RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2018-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. UHBVNL [LAWS(P&H)-2023-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
A ADITHYA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
MELVIN KUMAR S/O SHANTIAGO VS. K S HARISHA S/O NARAYANARAO [LAWS(KAR)-2019-1-189] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Enforcement of laws is as important as their enactment, especially where such laws deal with safety and security of citizens and create continuing obligations that call for constant vigil by those entrusted with their administration. Callous indifference and apathy, extraneous influence or considerations and the cynical "Chalta Hai" attitude more often than not costs the society dearly in man-made tragedies whether in the form of fire incidents, collapse of buildings and bridges, poisonous gas leaks or the like. Short-lived media attention followed by investigations that at times leave the end result flawed and a long winding criminal trial in which the witnesses predecease their depositions or switch sides under pressure or for gain and where even the victims or their families lose interest brings the sad saga to an uncertain end. A somewhat similar story is presented in these appeals by special leave arising out of a common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2008 passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Delhi whereby a batch of criminal appeals filed by those convicted by the trial Court for commission of different offences and the sentences awarded to them were disposed of alongwith criminal revision petition no.17 of 2008 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (hereinafter, "AVUT") that led to the death of 59 persons besides injuries to nearly 100 others.
(2.)The High Court has, on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, acquitted five of the appellants before it while upholding the convictions of the rest with or without modification of the nature of offence in some cases and reduction of the sentence in others. We shall in the course of this judgment refer in detail to the view taken by the Trial Court and the extent and nature of modification made to that by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
(3.)Suffice it to say that the fire incident that claimed valuable human lives took place in the heart of the capital city of Delhi in a cinema building situate in its posh Green Park Extension area on 13th June, 1997. The factual backdrop in which the unfortunate victims lost their lives or suffered injuries has been set out by the Trial Court in its judgment and reiterated by the High Court in the order passed by it without any significant changes in the narrative. In the Trial Court, as in the High Court and even before us there was no serious dispute as to the cause of the fire leading to the loss of human lives. We, therefore, would remain content with the broad narration of the facts as are available from the order passed by the Trial Court and that passed by the High Court, which are as under:
The Incident:
(2.)The High Court has, on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, acquitted five of the appellants before it while upholding the convictions of the rest with or without modification of the nature of offence in some cases and reduction of the sentence in others. We shall in the course of this judgment refer in detail to the view taken by the Trial Court and the extent and nature of modification made to that by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
(3.)Suffice it to say that the fire incident that claimed valuable human lives took place in the heart of the capital city of Delhi in a cinema building situate in its posh Green Park Extension area on 13th June, 1997. The factual backdrop in which the unfortunate victims lost their lives or suffered injuries has been set out by the Trial Court in its judgment and reiterated by the High Court in the order passed by it without any significant changes in the narrative. In the Trial Court, as in the High Court and even before us there was no serious dispute as to the cause of the fire leading to the loss of human lives. We, therefore, would remain content with the broad narration of the facts as are available from the order passed by the Trial Court and that passed by the High Court, which are as under:
The Incident:
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.