The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Ansal brothers, Sushil and Gopal Ansal to approach a Delhi court with an application to be decided within three weeks for de-sealing of the Uphaar cinema.
The tragedy that took place on June 13, 1997 claimed 59 lives and left over 100 persons injured.
The three-judge bench headed by justice KM Joseph noted that the trial in the case was over and the former directors of Ansal Group – Sushil and Gopal Ansal – who stood convicted in the trial had deposited the fine of ₹60 crore ( ₹30 crore each) as directed by the Supreme Court in August 2015.
The other stakeholders in the case – the Central Bureau of Investigation (probe agency), Delhi Police (licensing authority) and the association of victims of Uphaar tragedy (AVUT) informed the Court they had no pending claim over the theatre.
Also Read: Uphaar tragedy: SC quashes trial court proceedings against former IPS officer
The bench, also comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, “As far as the main litigation consisting of criminal trial where two former directors of the appellant company were accused, the curtains have come down by an order of this Court in August 2015. The amount of ₹60 crore has also been deposited. In these circumstances, there can be no obstacle in the appellant being given back the sealed theatre.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench, also comprising justices BV Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, “As far as the main litigation consisting of criminal trial where two former directors of the appellant company were accused, the curtains have come down by an order of this Court in August 2015. The amount of ₹60 crore has also been deposited. In these circumstances, there can be no obstacle in the appellant being given back the sealed theatre.”
{{/usCountry}}The bench also recorded the statements of additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj appearing for CBI and Delhi police and Neelam Krishnamoorthy, president of AVUT that they have no claim over the property in question.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), delivery of any property regarding which the trial has concluded is governed by Section 452(2).
The Court said that if Ansals make an application under Section 452 of CrPC before the concerned trial court for release of theatre in question, a decision will be taken by the trial court according to law and bearing in mind the stand taken by CBI, Delhi police and AVUT. The trial court was directed to decide the matter at the earliest and not later than 10 weeks from the application is filed attached with the top court’s order.
The Ansal Theatres and Clubhotels Private Limited had approached the apex court in 2010 after their permission for release was turned down by the Delhi high court on March 20, 2009.
In this order, the HC noted that the trial of the case is yet to be over as the Supreme Court was hearing the appeal challenging the conviction of Sushil and Gopal Ansal.
The victims claimed that the theatre held the key to determine the guilt of the then deputy commissioner of police (DCP), licensing Amod Kanth who had been summoned by the trial court to join the trial. It was for this reason, AVUT was not willing to release the theatre.
However, on April 20, the top court quashed the summons issued to Kanth thus drawing curtains on his trial in the case.
However, the AVUT informed the Court that the theatre was mortgaged by Ansals to pay the sum of ₹60 crore as ordered by the Supreme Court and thus, the theatre was very much in possession of the appellant company.
ASG Nataraj told the Court that once an application under Section 452(2) is moved, it is for the concerned court to determine to whom the property is to be released.
“Whether I have any objection or not is immaterial. It is for the concerned court to determine based on the nature of claim, title and any pending liabilities over the property in question.”
For Ansals, senior advocate Mathai Paikaday pointed out that CBI had filed an affidavit before the Delhi high court claiming to have no objection.
He further pointed out that in September 2003, the Delhi high court did order for the release of the cinema.