In a huge setback to Ansal brothers, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, the Supreme Court on Friday decided to hear in open court petitions seeking review of the reduction of the two-year sentence, with a fine of Rs 60 crore slapped on them, in the case relating to Uphaar Cinema tragedy, which claimed 59 lives. The court had reduced the sentence to the one already undergone by them. Pursuant to the judgment, the Ansals had paid the fine of Rs 60 crores.
A three-judge Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Kurian Jospeh and A.K. Goel, while hearing review petitions filed by the CBI and Uphaar Victims Association in the chamber, decided to hear it in open court to review the correctness of the August 19, 2015 verdict.
In its review petition, the CBI said “the impugned order after having enhanced the sentence of both the accused to two years substitutes the remaining sentence to be undergone with the sentence already undergone on payment of an amount of Rs 30 crores each. This substitution of remaining sentence on payment of Rs 30 crore has resulted in miscarriage of justice.”
The CBI pointed that the two accused had continuously violated every law on public safety for personal gain with scant regard to the safety of their patrons despite repeated warnings. That the age of the accused should not and cannot be factored in the present case as a mitigating circumstance. The incident occurred in 1997. The matter has been contested by the CBI and supported by the victim’s group vigorously. The trial was successfully delayed by the accused until such time as a directive was issued by the high court to speed up the trial.
It said the fire safety rules were flouted with impunity for years by the accused who are, on their own assertion, extremely affluent builders. It would be a wrong message that a tortuous trial ends in a mere monetary fine which can easily be afforded by the accused and such a monetary fine is considered adequate to meet the ends of justice and the rule of law.
The CBI faulted the court for not granting sufficient time to put forth its arguments adequately and properly. Due to the paucity of time on the day on which this case was heard, the prosecution could not adequately put across reasons as to why this Court should not substitute a monetary fine in place of a jail sentence. The accused had not followed the rules which enjoin features which would enable the public visiting such public places to evacuate with safety.
