Uphaar fire tragedy Delhi HC dismisses Ansals plea to cross examine IO in evidence tampering case
New Delhi Sep 17 PTI The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by real estate baron Sushil Ansal who is facing prosecution in case of tampering with evidence in the main Uphaar cinema fire tragedy matter seeking to cross examine the investigating officer following change of counsel representing himThe high court said a mere change of counsel would not suffice to recall the witness to put certain suggestion in the manner the new advocate desiresAnsals plea is devoid of merits it saidThe petitioner Ansal had engaged earlier counsel of his choice He made a decision not to cross-examine not one but 18 witnesses probably because the petitioner is facing charge of conspiracy only and hence such decision viz not to cross-examine 18 witnesses cannot be said to an inadvertent act but may be a part of his strategy Justice Yogesh Khanna saidSince a considerable delay has taken place the plight of victims cannot be ignored the court saidThe evidence tampering case is at the stage of final arguments before the trial courtThe high court said it needs to see the intention to file such an application under section 311 power to summon material witness or examine a person present of the CrPC at a deeply belated stageAnsals counsel submitted before the high court that the trial court has disposed of his plea under section 311 of the CrPC and said he was seeking one more opportunity to cross examine the investigating officerThe plea was opposed by Delhi Police which said the trial is at its final stage as the prosecution and defence evidence has already been closed and the lower court is presently hearing final arguments on behalf of the accusedThe Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy AVUT also opposed the plea saying it was a deliberate attempt to delay the trial and the application was completely frivolous and vagueThe high court in its order discussed some of the relevant dates of the case including that the prosecution evidence was closed on April 6 and defence evidence was concluded on August 25 and final arguments started from August 27 It was when the final arguments had started this application was moved by Ansal before the trial courtIt said admittedly prosecution witness DCP Amit Roy who had filed the second charge sheet in the case and to whom Ansal wants to cross examine on the basis of documents filedseized by him never considered the petitioner an accused and probably for this reason the erstwhile counsel did not prefer to cross examine himIt appeared to be a conscious decision of the counsel for the petitioner considering the nature of evidence against him the high court saidEarlier senior advocate Vikas Pahwa representing AVUT chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy had argued that the new counsel of the accused has strategically filed an application under section 311 CrPC during final arguments to recall a witness who has already been cross examined extensivelyHe had said that due to the delay caused in the trial the victims of the tragedy had to approach the Delhi High Court several times to get the charges framed against the accused in 2013 and even to expedite the trial in 2018 so that it is conducted in a time bound mannerConsidering that the Uphaar tragedy happened in 1997 a delay has already been caused and the victims still await justice today in 2021 after 24 years of the incident Pahwa had submittedThe high court on September 9 had refused to stay the trial in the tampering of witness caseThe case relates to tampering with the evidence of the main case in which Sushil and Gopal Ansal were convicted and sentenced to two-year jail term by the Supreme CourtHowever the apex court had released them on the period already undergone in the jail on the condition that they pay Rs 30 crore fine each to be used for building a trauma centre in the national capitalThe Ansal brothers along with a court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and other individuals — P P Batra Har Swaroop Panwar Anoop Singh and Dharamvir Malhotra — were booked in the present case of allegedly tampering with the evidencePanwar and Malhotra died during the course of the trialAccording to the charge sheet the documents alleged to have been tampered with included a police memo giving details of recoveries immediately after the incident Delhi Fire Service records pertaining to repair of transformer installed inside Uphaar minutes of Managing Directors meetings and four chequesOut of the six set of documents a cheque of Rs 50 lakh issued by Sushil Ansal to self and minutes of the MDs meetings proved beyond doubt that the two brothers were handling the day-to-day affairs of the theatre at the relevant time the charge sheet had saidThe fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of Hindi film Border on June 13 1997 claiming 59 livesThe case was lodged on the direction of the Delhi High Court while hearing a petition by KrishnamoorthyThe accused are charged with offences under sections 120-B criminal conspiracy 109 abetment 201 causing disappearance of evidence of offence and 409 criminal breach of trust of the IPC PTI SKV SA
New Delhi Sep 17 PTI The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by real estate baron Sushil Ansal who is facing prosecution in case of tampering with evidence in the main Uphaar cinema fire tragedy matter seeking to cross examine the investigating officer following change of counsel representing himThe high court said a mere change of counsel would not suffice to recall the witness to put certain suggestion in the manner the new advocate desiresAnsals plea is devoid of merits it saidThe petitioner Ansal had engaged earlier counsel of his choice He made a decision not to cross-examine not one but 18 witnesses probably because the petitioner is facing charge of conspiracy only and hence such decision viz not to cross-examine 18 witnesses cannot be said to an inadvertent act but may be a part of his strategy Justice Yogesh Khanna saidSince a considerable delay has taken place the plight of victims cannot be ignored the court saidThe evidence tampering case is at the stage of final arguments before the trial courtThe high court said it needs to see the intention to file such an application under section 311 power to summon material witness or examine a person present of the CrPC at a deeply belated stageAnsals counsel submitted before the high court that the trial court has disposed of his plea under section 311 of the CrPC and said he was seeking one more opportunity to cross examine the investigating officerThe plea was opposed by Delhi Police which said the trial is at its final stage as the prosecution and defence evidence has already been closed and the lower court is presently hearing final arguments on behalf of the accusedThe Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy AVUT also opposed the plea saying it was a deliberate attempt to delay the trial and the application was completely frivolous and vagueThe high court in its order discussed some of the relevant dates of the case including that the prosecution evidence was closed on April 6 and defence evidence was concluded on August 25 and final arguments started from August 27 It was when the final arguments had started this application was moved by Ansal before the trial courtIt said admittedly prosecution witness DCP Amit Roy who had filed the second charge sheet in the case and to whom Ansal wants to cross examine on the basis of documents filedseized by him never considered the petitioner an accused and probably for this reason the erstwhile counsel did not prefer to cross examine himIt appeared to be a conscious decision of the counsel for the petitioner considering the nature of evidence against him the high court saidEarlier senior advocate Vikas Pahwa representing AVUT chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy had argued that the new counsel of the accused has strategically filed an application under section 311 CrPC during final arguments to recall a witness who has already been cross examined extensivelyHe had said that due to the delay caused in the trial the victims of the tragedy had to approach the Delhi High Court several times to get the charges framed against the accused in 2013 and even to expedite the trial in 2018 so that it is conducted in a time bound mannerConsidering that the Uphaar tragedy happened in 1997 a delay has already been caused and the victims still await justice today in 2021 after 24 years of the incident Pahwa had submittedThe high court on September 9 had refused to stay the trial in the tampering of witness caseThe case relates to tampering with the evidence of the main case in which Sushil and Gopal Ansal were convicted and sentenced to two-year jail term by the Supreme CourtHowever the apex court had released them on the period already undergone in the jail on the condition that they pay Rs 30 crore fine each to be used for building a trauma centre in the national capitalThe Ansal brothers along with a court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and other individuals — P P Batra Har Swaroop Panwar Anoop Singh and Dharamvir Malhotra — were booked in the present case of allegedly tampering with the evidencePanwar and Malhotra died during the course of the trialAccording to the charge sheet the documents alleged to have been tampered with included a police memo giving details of recoveries immediately after the incident Delhi Fire Service records pertaining to repair of transformer installed inside Uphaar minutes of Managing Directors meetings and four chequesOut of the six set of documents a cheque of Rs 50 lakh issued by Sushil Ansal to self and minutes of the MDs meetings proved beyond doubt that the two brothers were handling the day-to-day affairs of the theatre at the relevant time the charge sheet had saidThe fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of Hindi film Border on June 13 1997 claiming 59 livesThe case was lodged on the direction of the Delhi High Court while hearing a petition by KrishnamoorthyThe accused are charged with offences under sections 120-B criminal conspiracy 109 abetment 201 causing disappearance of evidence of offence and 409 criminal breach of trust of the IPC PTI SKV SA
