1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
SUSHIL ANSAL

.....APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE THROUGH CBI

…..RESPONDENT
WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.598 OF 2010
GOPAL ANSAL

.....APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE THROUGH CBI

…..RESPONDENT
WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.599 OF 2010
HARSARUP PANWAR

……APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE THROUGH CBI

…..RESPONDENT
WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.600-602 OF 2010,
605 OF 2010, 606 OF 2010 AND 613 OF 2010

Page 1

 2

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

Page 2

 3

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

Page 3

 4

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 transformer installed and
maintained by the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), which was
in the premises of Uphaar Cinema. The said 1000 KVA

Page 4

 5

transformer, even though located within the Uphaar
cinema premises, did not belong to the appellants.

5.

The said transformer caught fire on 13.6.1997

around 6.55 a.m. damaging the area surrounding the
transformer. The fire was brought under control by 7.25
a.m. and it was repaired by two employees of the DVB
along with Senior Fitter, Bir Singh, who were possibly not
highly qualified in the field of Electrical Engineering. The
repairs were carried out without use of any special
equipment. The said transformer was recharged for
resumption of electric supply by 11.30 a.m. on the same
day.
6.

As the factual matrix would further unfurl, on the

fateful day, around 3:00pm, the matinee show of film
‘Border’ started. Between 3:55 and 4:55 p.m., there was a
general power shut down; however the Cinema show
continued. Immediately, on resumption of electricity at
4:55 pm, there was intense and heavy sparking in the
DVB transformer, which led to B phase cable detaching,
sliding down of the B phase cable, forming an arc and

Page 5

 6

ultimately resulting in rupture of the Transformer fin.
Through this slit, the transformer oil spilled out, caught
fire and consequently set ablaze several vehicles parked
nearby in the stilt floor. This fire generated hot thick
black smoke, which travelled upwards, accelerated by a
Chimney effect.
7.

The smoke entered the hall from the staircases, air

conditioning ducts as well as the area beneath the screen
and the audience sitting in the ground floor of the
auditorium escaped immediately. The audience sitting in
the balcony found it hard to escape as there were no
lights due to lack of power supply, nor were there any
emergency lights or lights to give indication about the
exit.

Moreover, there were no warnings through public

address system for immediate evacuation in an orderly
manner. The closure of the right side exit, elimination of
one exit and the narrowing of another exit as well as
introduction of certain seats near the left side exit,
together with bolting of certain doors in the balcony
caused panic and resulted in delayed escape of most of

Page 6

 7

the spectators occupying balcony seats. Most of the
spectators were subsequently rescued by the fire fighters,
but they were severely affected by the smoke. The fire was
soon declared a major one and rescue operations
continued till about 7:30pm. The entire mishap claimed
lives of 59 persons besides injuries to nearly 100 others.
8. It is pertinent to note here that initially there were two
exits in the balcony portion of the cinema theatre. One
portion was open as an exit, whereas another had been
closed down on account of certain additional seats placed
near the exit. The additional seats were arranged with
permission of all authorities concerned and even the
second exit had also been closed with permission of all
authorities

concerned.

The

representatives

of

the

departments concerned like Home Department, Police
Department, Fire Department, etc. had visited the theatre
before giving necessary permission for increase in the
number of seats, approval of the changed layout of seats
and for closure of the second exit.

Page 7

 8

9.

Under these circumstances, when another exit had

been closed on account of arrangement of additional
seats, which had been done with proper permission of the
concerned authorities, the spectators of the balcony had
to rush only towards one exit which was leading to the
staircase, already occupied with toxic gases including
carbon monoxide.
10.

Due to inhalation of toxic gases including carbon

monoxide, most of the spectators, who had occupied
balcony seats, collapsed in the balcony or on the staircase
and ultimately the unfortunate mishap, which is the
subject matter of this case, took place.
11.

In view of the aforestated undisputed facts, the issue

with regard to imposition of sentence upon the appellants
is to be decided by us. We are concerned with imposition
of sentence in a criminal case and not with awarding
damages in a civil case. Principles for deciding both are
different.
12.

In the instant case, we are only concerned with

imposition of appropriate sentence for the reason that the

Page 8

 9

appellants have already been convicted of the offences
under Sections 304-A/337/338 read with Section 36 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 14 of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the conviction has been
affirmed by this Court.
13.

One can say that if the second exit leading to

another staircase had not been closed, possibly the
damage and deaths could have been less. The reason for
which the second exit was closed was arrangement of
additional seats and change of layout of seats in the
balcony.

The appellants, the owners of the cinema

premises, were aware of the fact that one exit had been
closed due to addition of seats and change in the layout of
the seats and the said fact could have exposed the
spectators

to

the

risk

they

actually

faced,

which

ultimately resulted into the abovesaid mishap. Be that as
it may, the fact remains that the appellants have been
found guilty and they have been convicted.
14.

On the issue of sentence, one of our brother Judges,

T.S. Thakur, J. has upheld rigorous imprisonment of one

Page 9

 10

year which has been imposed by the High Court.

So far

as Gyan Sudha Misra, J. is concerned, she was of the
view that the sentence imposed was insufficient and
therefore, it should be enhanced and possibly because the
heirs of the victims were not interested in getting
compensation, she was of the view that appropriate fine
should be imposed upon the appellants, which should be
used for a public purpose so that in future, in the event of
any such mishap, the injured persons can be given
prompt and effective treatment. The learned Judge had,
therefore,

perhaps

rightly

thought

about

imposing

rigorous imprisonment of one additional year and looking
at the fact that the victims had already lost their lives and
the amount of fine which could be recovered from the
appellants can be used for a better public purpose, the
learned Judge imposed fine of Rs.50 crore on each of the
appellants in lieu of the additional sentence which had
been proposed by observing:“40. Hence, I am of the view that interest of
justice to some extent would be served by
imposing on the Accused Appellants a
substantial fine and not merely a jail sentence.
Thus, while the sentence of one year imposed by

Page 10

 11

the High Court is upheld, the additional
sentence of one year further while allowing the
appeal of AVUT, is fit to be substituted by a
substantial sum of fine to be shared equally by
the Appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal
along with DVB which also can not absolve itself
from compensating the victims of Uphaar
tragedy represented by the AVUT”.
“42. But while allowing the appeal of AVUT and
CBI, I take note of the fact that since Sushil
Ansal is now more than 74 years old and was
running the theatre business essentially along
with his brother Appellant No. 2 Gopal Ansal, I
consider that the period of enhanced sentence
in these appeals imposed on the Appellants
Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal may be
substituted with substantial amount of fine to
be specified hereinafter and paid in the appeal
bearing Nos. 600-602 of 2010 preferred by
AVUT and Criminal Appeal Nos. 605-616 of
2010 preferred by the CBI which shall be
shared by the Appellant Sushil Ansal and
Appellant Gopal Ansal in equal measure along
with the Delhi Vidyut Board as I have upheld
the sentence imposed on their employees too.
My view stands fortified by the order passed in
the case of Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy where the
punishment for criminal negligence was allowed
to be substituted by substantial compensation
which were paid to the victims or their legal
representatives”.
15.

Shri

Ram

Jethmalani,

learned

senior

counsel,

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the amount of fine of Rs.100 crore may be
reduced and the view expressed by Misra, J. to reduce the

Page 11

 12

sentence of appellant - Sushil Ansal (A-1) to the period
already undergone considering his advanced age, be also
made applicable to Gopal Ansal (A-2) on the principle of
parity.

He submitted that both the appellants had

already undergone substantial part of the sentence out of
sentence of one year awarded to them and were willing to
pay substantial amount towards fine in lieu of the
undergoing remaining period of sentence. He also pointed
out that out of one year sentence, they had already
undergone substantive sentence of 5-6 months and with
remissions, sentence undergone worked out to about nine
months.
16.

We have duly considered the matter. It hardly needs

to be mentioned that an appropriate sentence has to be
awarded by taking into consideration the gravity of
offence, the manner of commission, the age of the accused
and other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The
sentence

should

neither

be

excessively

harsh

nor

ridiculously low.

Page 12

 13

17.

We are conscious of the fact that matter of this

magnitude may call for a higher sentence, but the Court
has to limit itself to the choice available under the law
prescribing sentence. The fact that remains is that the
maximum sentence prescribed under the law is period of
two years and the High Court had chosen, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, to award sentence of one
year which has been approved by Thakur, J.

In the

dissenting opinion by Misra, J. the modification is that
the sentence be enhanced but giving an option to pay
substantial amount in lieu of the enhanced sentence with
further direction to reduce the jail sentence to the period
already undergone, if the amount of fine in lieu of
enhanced sentence is paid.
18.

After having considered the facts of the case, the

views expressed by both the learned Judges and the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
both sides, we are in agreement with the view expressed
by Misra, J. that sentence awarded by the High Court
needs to be enhanced to the maximum period of two years

Page 13

 14

under Section 304-A but in lieu of additional period of
sentence of one year, the substantial amount of fine needs
to be imposed. We are further of the view that in case the
said amount of fine is paid, the sentence should be
reduced to the period already undergone, as indicated by
Misra, J. in the case of Sushil Ansal (A1). On the principle
of parity, the case of Gopal Ansal (A2) will stand on the
same footing as that of Sushil Ansal (A1). Thus, we are of
the considered opinion that ends of justice would meet if
the appellants are directed to pay fine so that the amount
of fine can be used either for the purpose of setting up a
Trauma Centre in NCT of Delhi or for upgrading Trauma
Centres of Hospitals managed in NCT of Delhi by the
Government of Delhi.
19.

We, therefore, direct that a fine of Rs.30 crore on

each appellant should be imposed and if the said fine is
paid within a period of three months, the sentence of the
appellants be reduced to the sentence already undergone.
We have noted the fact that as appellant no.1 is fairly
aged, it may not be fruitful to ask him to undergo rigorous

Page 14

 15

imprisonment. On the ground of parity and on the
peculiar facts of this case, so far as appellant no.2 may
also not be constrained to undergo the sentence, if he also
pays the same amount of fine. If the aforestated amount
is not paid within three months from the date of order
dated 19th August, 2015, the appellants shall undergo two
years’ rigorous imprisonment, including the sentence
already undergone.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599/2010:20.

As regards the conviction of Appellant H.S. Panwar

(A-15) assailed in Criminal Appeal No. 599/2010, the Ld.
Judges dismissed the afore-said appeal and affirmed the
conviction u/s. 304-A/337/338 read with S. 36 IPC. On
the question of quantum of sentence qua Appellant H.S.
Panwar (A-15), the matter was placed before us as stated
above.
21. In view of the facts discussed above and on the
ground of parity, we direct that Appellant Harsarup
Panwar (A-15) shall stand sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.

However, having regard to

Page 15

 16

advanced age and diseases like alzheimer’s disease
suffered by the accused and other peculiar facts and
circumstances, if he pays Rs.10 lakh by way of fine, the
sentence will stand reduced to the period already
undergone. If he fails to pay the aforestated amount
within three months from the order dated 19th August,
2015, he shall undergo the sentence of one year,
including the term which he has already undergone.
Now, we have been informed that Appellant Harsarup
Panwar (A-15) has already paid Rs.10 lakh as per
operative order pronounced on 19th August, 2015.
22. The aforestated fine imposed upon the appellants in
Criminal Appeals No. 597, 598 and 599 of 2010 filed by
Sushil Ansal (A-1), Gopal Ansal (A-2) and Harsarup
Panwar (A-15) shall be given by way of a demand draft to
the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government for setting up a
new trauma centre or for upgrading the existing trauma
centres of hospitals managed by the Government of NCT
of Delhi.

Page 16

 17

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.600-602, 605, 606 and 613 of
2010
23. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 605, 606 and 613
of 2010 filed by the State and Criminal Appeal No.
600-602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy are disposed of.
24.

In view of the above order, the impugned judgment

stands modified so far as the question of imposition of
sentence is concerned and the appeals are disposed of as
partly allowed.
25.

We had passed the operative part of the order on 19 th

August, 2015, but since the Court time was almost over,
we have now given the reasons for the said order.

………................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
………................................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
………...............................J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015

Page 17