Delhi District Court
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs L R Sharma on 16 January, 2017
Case No. 58247/2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 43/2016
New Case No. 58247/2016
State (NCT of Delhi) .....Revisionist
Versus
1. L R Sharma
S/o Sh. K.R. Sharma,
2. Rajesh Sharma
S/o Sh. K.R. Sharma,
3. Chetan Sharma,
S/o Sh. K.R. Sharma,
(R-1 to R-3 R/o V-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi).
4. P.K. Sharma,
S/o Sh. N.C. Sharma,
R/o 21, Saubhagya Apartment,
Section-9, Rohini, New Delhi.
5. Dhirender Joshi,
S/o Late Sh. Harinand Joshi,
R/o B-36, Arya Nagar Apartment,
Plot No. 91, Patparganj, Delhi-92.
6. Adesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kanahiya Lal,
R/o B-1/1, Brij Vihar,
Pitampura, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Instituted on : 26th April 2016
Argued on : 16th January 2017
Decided on : 16th January 2017
JUDGMENT
1. This revision U/S 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is preferred by the State against order dated 6 th February 2016, passed by the Court of Sh. R.K. Panday, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby Ld trial court framed charges only against State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 1 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 accused Ajay Sikri u/s 304A whereas other accused persons (petitioners herein) i.e. L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Chetan Sharma, partner of L.R. Sharma & Company as well as officials of Delhi Jal Board namely Dhirender Joshi, Adarsh Kumar and P.K. Sharma were discharged.
2. Criminal law was set into motion in this case on 5 th March 2010 on registration of a FIR at PS Timarpur u/s 304-A IPC at the instance of ASI Mohd. Yameen. On 5th March 2010, vide DD No. 304-A an information was received at PS Timarpur that four boys died due to drowning at Gopalpur, G.T. bypass Nala. On receipt of information, ASI Yameen reached at the spot near Pushta Road, Gopalpur in a Junglenuma ground where a pit was found filled with water which came out of adjoining pipe line. Public had taken out drowned children who were found in unconscious state. As per MLC, children were brought dead to the hospital. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Incharge PS Timarpur on 24th April 2012, wherein only Ajay Sikri, Sub Contractor of M/s L.R.Sharma and Company was charge-sheeted. On 22 nd November 2012, Ld trial court directed further investigation. As per relevant portion of Order dated 22 nd November 2012 Written reply was sought from the Delhi Jal Board regarding award of supply of contract by the contractor, Tender notice issued for award of contract and other relevant documents were ordered to be seized and Liability of the concerned official of Delhi Jal Board and M/s L.R. Sharma and Company whose duty was to supervise the execution of the whole contract work, was ordered to be found out.
State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 2 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016
3. On 10th December 2014, supplementary challan was filed by IO Insp. Pradeep Kumar, wherein Rajesh Sharma S/o L.R. Sharma owner of M/s L.R. Sharma was placed in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet. He was stated to be a (Suspect) and was not charge-sheeted. Thereafter vide order dated 15 th October 2014, Ld trial court summoned, then Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer of Delhi Jal Board and Partners of M/s L.R. Sharma and Company.
4. Accused persons L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Chetan Sharma, partners of M/s L.R. Sharma & Company challenged order of summoning and vide order dated 16th March 2015, Ld. Sessions Judge dismissed revision petition. Then, M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and its partners preferred a petition u/s 482 IPC, Criminal MC No. 2316/2015 for quashing of , but High Court, did not interfere with the order on summoning of respondents. Respondent had referred a case reported as Kurban Hussain Mohammed Ali Ringwalla vs State of Maharashtra1, and submitted that trial court was expected to examine whether negligence resulted death of said four children. Hon'ble High Court observed that this exercise was required to be carried out by the trial court at the stage of framing of charge uninfluenced by the impugned order whereby respondents were summoned to face trial. Then, Ld trial court vide impugned order dated 6 th February 2016 served notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C to accused Ajay Sikri, sub-contractor of M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and discharged remaining accused (respondents herein) namely L.R. Sharma, Chetan Sharma and Rajesh Sharma, partners of M/s 1 (1965) 2 SCR 622 State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 3 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 L.R. Sharma & Company as well as the official of DJB. There is no dispute that contract was awarded by Delhi Jal Board to M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma were its partners and the contract was further assigned to Ajay Sikri by M/s L.R. Sharma & Company.
5. Sh. Himanshu Garg, Ld Addl. PP for state submitted that a prima facie case is made out against respondents namely L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma, partners of M/s L.R. Sharma & Company as well as DJB officials namely P.K. Shrma, Dhirender Joshi (AE) and Adarsh Kumar (EE). It is submitted that Ld MM in the impugned order dated 6 th February 2016, observed that "officials of DJB failed to supervise that work contract was assigned to sub- contractor/accused Ajay Sikri, contrary to the terms of the contract between firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and Delhi Jal Board. It is submitted that Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sushil Ansal vs. State and Association of victims of Uphar Tragedy vs Sushil Ansal & Anr. (2014) opined that proximate cause and efficient cause of death in the case of rash and negligent act may be decided according to the facts and circumstances of each and every case and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had discussed "Kurban Hussain vs State of Maharashtra" and convicted all partners of concerned firm. It is submitted that Ld MM failed to appreciate order dated 26 th May 2015 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that trial court was expected to examine whether the negligence resulting death of four children was the proximate cause of death and directly attributable to the petitioner or not and when trial court had summoned all the respondents as accused persons and Sessions Court, found no infirmity in the impugned State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 4 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 order of summoning and facts and evidence at that time was the same as at the time of framing of charge.
6. Ld trial court in impugned order noted that "It was correct that officials of DJB failed to supervise that work contract was assigned to sub- contractor/accused Ajay Sikri, contrary to the terms of the contract between firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and DJB. APP submits that indisputably, the work of laying down of drain/pipe line of the stretch in question has not been completed on the date when the unfortunate incident had occurred i.e. 5 th March 2010. Attention of the court is drawn towards letter dated 16 th March 2010 written by M.K. Sharma, Executive Engineer, Flood Control Department to the SHO, PS Timarpur stating that the land in question under reference had been handed over to DJB to lay their pipe line and was under their control for carrying out work which has not been completed so far.
7. While handing over the land, (where pipe line was laid down) flood control department had imposed certain conditions. There is letter dated 24 th July 2007 written by Sh. A.K. Bhatia, Executive Engineer, CD XIV to the Executive Engineer, DJB specifying conditions which are as under:
"(i) That the ownership of land shall remain with I & FC Department.
(ii) That the top of pipe line will be 1 m below existing ground level.
(iii) That DJB will restore the land and other structures like boundary wall in its original shape after embedding the pipe line.
(iv) That any mishap occurred during the embedding of the pipe line will be the sole responsibility of DJB.
(v) No valve or hydrant will be allowed in the pipe line in the land stretch of I & FC.
(vi) That DJB will be fully responsible for upkeep and maintenance of this pipe line for all the time to come.
(vii) That DJB will give an undertaking to restore the pipe line in the event of any damage at its cost at any time within the shortest period.
State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 5 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016
(viii) That any damage caused to any property or any person, (I & FC & General Public) due to leaking/bursting or for any other reasons, will be made good by DJB and all the legal and other consequences will be borne by DJB.
(ix) That the pipe line will be laid at the least distance from the boundary wall without disturbing the foundation of the wall. Any damage caused to the boundary wall will be made good by DJB.
(x) That I & FC Department will in no way responsible for any damage caused to the pipe line by any one including puncturing the pipe line. However, designated DJB officers will be allowed to frequently inspect the pipe line.
(xi) That DJB will take all safety measures required to ensure that no damage is caused to the property of I & FC/General Public due to this pipe line for all time to come.
(xii) That in case of any exigency, DJB will have to shift the pipe line from the proposed site to any other place without insisting for alternate site at their own cost.
(xiii) That the earth excavated or any other material recovered from execution will be the property of I & FC.
(xiv) That since the proposed site for laying pipe line is filled up soil, all precautionary measures may be taken by DJB to ensure that the pipe line do not settle at a later date and cause any damage to the I & FC property.
(xv) That after laying the pipe line DJB will submit a topographic map showing the exact location of the pipe line for the convenience of I & FC."
8. Ld Prosecutor for the State submit that as per the conditions, DJB had to restore the land and other structure like boundary wall in its original shape after embedding the pipe line and any damage caused by the front wall was to be made good or any mis-happening occurred during embedding of pipe line was to be the sole responsibility of DJB, for upkeep and maintenance of the pipe line and was required to ensure that no damage was caused to the property of Flood Control Department/ general public due to the pipe line for all time to come and that any damage caused to any property, to any person or general public due to leakage/breakage of or any other reason was to be made good by DJB and all other legal consequences were to be borne by DJB.
9. Vide letter dated 7th October 2009, Estate General W(A) wrote to the Executive Engineer CD XIV, Flood Control Department undertaking to abide State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 6 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 condition mentioned in the letter dated 24 th July 2009. Ld Addl. PP pointed out that in the charge-sheet, it has been specifically mentioned that the land where alleged incident had occurred had a boundary wall but the said wall was broken from few places and the local residents and children used to tress pass the land for going towards ring road and urinating etc. It is submitted that land was handed over by the Flood Control Department to DJB on conditions noted above, which had not been complied with by DJB. It is submitted that DJB cannot escape its liability by contending that they had delegated the work of laying down the work and pipe line to a contractor or to a sub-contractor knowing fully well the conditions on which the land was handed over to them. It is submitted that four children expired in this case due to the negligence of DJB officials and contractor M/s L.R. Sharma & Company. By entering into a contract dated 3 rd March 2009 DJB and partners of M/s L.R. Sharma and Company, DJB cannot escape. Contractor was to be responsible for any incident that might occur during the progress of the work and for injury and damage to the person or to the property of any description whatsoever which might be caused by or result from the execution of the work.
10. Material on record shows that an agreement dated 29 th December 2009 was executed between DJB and Rajesh Sharma, partner M/s L.R. Sharma and Company and certain terms and conditions mentioned separately formed part of the said contract and parties agreed to abide by the conditions of contract attached to the agreement. It is submitted that terms and conditions which had been undertaken by DJB while taking over the land in question do not form part State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 7 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 of the terms and conditions which were entered into between the contractor and the sub-contractor. Ld Addl. PP urged that 'Kurban Hussain's case (supra) referred by Ld trial court was not applicable in the factual matrix as the said authority was not on the point of charge and the said case was an appeal preferred by the appellants against their conviction u/s 304A. Secondly, observation was given in the said case decided after evidence was adduced on merits and at the stage of charge, trial court had to see a prima facie case and whether grave suspicion for commission of the offence existed or not.
11. On the other hand, Sh. Ajay Paul, Ld counsel appearing for the M/s L.R. Sharma & Company as well as the officials of DJB argued that there was no contravention of the undertaking given by DJB to Flood Control Department because DJB had taken due care by deploying contractor to take care of land and the works for consideration of Rs.18.5 crores and criminal liability is different from civil liability. It is submitted that at best, contract between Flood and Control Department undertaken by DJB could only give rise to civil liability, in case of contravention, if any, and not criminal liability but in the present case, there was no contravention. It is submitted that responsibility was delegated to M/s L.R. Sharma through Rajesh Sharma, partner to take all safety measures for compliance of terms mentioned in the undertaking and in the alternative, even if there was a violation of the undertaking by DJB, act of violation of the terms and conditions of the undertaking cannot be termed to be a negligent act which can be said to be the direct and proximate cause of death of four children, who tressed into land in question. It is submitted that M/s L.R. Sharma & Company State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 8 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 had not given entire work to the sub-contractor M/s Akhil Enterprise whose proprietor is Ajay Sikri. M/s L.R. Sharma and Company under the assigned work, had to design and procure pipe line and work of laying down pipe lines within the parameters of CPWD Manual, which could not be termed as subletting of work and CPWD Manual authorized engagement of labour work on piece basis and that particular stretch of work assigned to M/s Akhil Enterprise was piece work. Sh. Paul, Ld counsel submitted that M/s L.R. Sharma & Company contractor is not liable in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain's case. DJB had given a contract to one 3 rd Party Government Company M/s RITES Ltd whose role was to check whether execution of work was being done as per CPWD manual and contract conditions and relevant 'IS specification' and no fault was found by M/s RITES Ltd.
12. In rebuttal, Ld Addl. PP for state submitted that DJB had to supervise the work and facts and circumstances on record show that no supervision was carried out by DJB officials i.e. Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and JE. It is submitted that there is a violation of undertaking furnished to the Flood Control Department of DJB and that standard of care that was expected by contractor was not fulfilled. It is submitted that the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C of Daya Ram, Ganga Ram, Brijpal shows that wall was broken and the stretch was not filled and in case, stretch had been filled water could not have been accumulated and incident could not have occurred and trial court had just to see a prima facie case.
State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 9 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sushil Ansal vs State and Association of Victims of Uplat tragedy vs Sushil Ansal and Anr. (2014) opined that proximate cause and efficient cause of death in the case of rash or negligent act may be decided according to facts and circumstances of each and every cases and had discussed "Kurban Hussain vs State of Maharashtra"
referred by Ld counsel for respondent and convicted partners of the concerned firm. In the present case, perusal of order dated 26 th May 2015 of Hon'ble High Court at Delhi, shows that trial court was expected to examine whether the negligence resulting in death of four children was the proximate cause and directly attributable to petitioners. Hon'ble High Court directed that this exercise be carried out at the stage of framing of charge before the trial court uninfluenced by the impugned order. It is submitted that when Ld MM has summoned all the accused persons then accused persons had approached the Sessions Court, which found no infirmity in the impugned order, and facts and evidence existing at that time, was same as at the time of framing of charge.
14. Contract was awarded by DJB to L.R. Sharma & Company on 30 th March 2009 with respect to "Replacement/Shifting of 1100 mm/1500mm Dia rising water mains emanating from Wazirabad W.T.P near Wazirabad and Gopalpur Village (on design build basis)"for a total awarded cost of Rs. 17,42,70,000/- (Seventeen Crores Fourty Two Lacs and Seventy Thousand Only). As per Contractor L.R. Sharma & Co., he had further given certain piece work of laying down pipeline at a particular stretch to Sh. Ajay Sikri, Proprietor M/s Akhil Enterprises for a consideration of Rs. 1,18,90,000/- (One Crore Eighteen Lacs State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 10 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 and Ninety Thousand Only) vide work order dated 28th December 2009 and it was given under clause 32.13.3, CPWD manual 2007, Page 156 according to which engagement of the Labour on piece work shall not deemed to be subletting. It was pointed out that Contractor L.R. Sharma & Co. had incurred expenses by spending Rs. 1,18,90,000/- under the Work Order dated 28 th December, 2009 for ensuring that the Watch and Ward (deployment of Security Guards etc) was taken care of by M/S Akhil Enterprises and contractor L.R. Sharma & Co. were taking care of other responsibilities such as supply of material etc. as per Work Order dated 28/12/2009 Special Condition No. 1:28 pages No. 189 of Contract Agreement, contractor was absolutely & Solely responsible for any Accident that might occur during progress of work and that M/s L.R. Sharma, who had to take at their own expense, necessary & timely precaution against injury or accident. This condition does not supercede the clause 32.13.3 of CPWD manual and does not preclude the contractor M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. to engage Labour/Personal for piece Work including the deployment of Security Guards. Thus, it is clear that contractor M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. was empowered under the Contract Agreement with DJB to engage M/s Akhil Enterprises to deploy Security Guard at the site and sum of Rs. 1,18,90,000/- was agreed in Work Order dated 28/12/2009 which is stated to include the payment of Watch and Ward as well as Barricading.
15. This court has perused trial court record and has given thoughts to the matter. Police charge sheeted co-accused Ajay Sikri only on account of his being proprietor of M/S Akhil Enterprises. It is pertinent to note that in the present State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 11 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 case, respondent namely Officials of Delhi Jal Board and the contractor M/s L.R. Sharma and Company and its partner were not charge-sheeted at the time of filing of the final report U/S 173 Cr.P.C. dated 29 th December 2011 and Ld trial court vide order dated 22nd November 2012 directed IO for further investigation and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed by IO on 15 th October 2014. Respondents were not charge-sheeted in the supplementary charge-sheet also and were kept in the column no. 12 as suspects only and it was specifically mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet that there is no sufficient evidence against the partners of M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and no role was attributed to the officials of the DJB in the supplementary charge-sheet for the accident.
16. Court can draw different conclusions at different stages of a case and in the present case, High Court observed that trial court shall examine the questions of negligence uninfluenced by summoning order. Ld. Trial Court rightly opined that due to the only reason that DJB officials failed to supervise that contract assigned to Ajay Sikri contrary to terms of contract between M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. and DJB, it cannot be said that death of victims was caused by the act which was direct result of rash and negligence act officials of DJB. Finding has been given by the Ld. Trial Court based on the reasoning given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurban Hussain Rangwala's case. No prima facie Case is made out against the officials of DJB as there is no sufficient incriminating material against them as noted in the conclusive paragraphs of Supplementary Charge Sheet. In Kurban Hussain Rangwala vs State of Maharashtra's it was State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 12 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 observed that to invoke the provisions of Section 304-A IPC, the negligent act resulting in death must be the "Causa Causans", It is not enough that it may have been the "Cause Sine Qua Non". The terms "Cause Causans" means "the immediate cause as opposed to the remote cause" or "the last link in the chain of causation". Whereas cause sine qua non" means "A cause without which a thing cannot exist " or " A cause without which the effect would not have been caused.
17. Ld trial court in the impugned order observed as under:
"Heard the submissions made on behalf of the State through Ld. APP for State and also heard the submissions made on behalf of accused persons namely Ajay Sikri and L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma, all the then partners of firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and accused persons namely P.K. Sharma, Dhirender Joshi and Adesh Kumar officials of Delhi Jal Board. I have also perused the judgments as relied upon by the accused persons. It is not in dispute that contract was awarded by Delhi Jal Board to the firm M/s LR. Sharma & Company and accused persons L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma all were its partners. It is also not in dispute that the contract was further assigned to the accused Ajay Sikri by the firm M/s LR.Sharma & Company.
Section 304-A IPC provides punishment for causing death by negligence It provides that whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Law on the point to fix responsibility for offence punishable u/s 30A IPC is laid down by Hon'ble supreme Court of India in case "Kurban Hussain Mohammedali Rangwala Vs. State of Maharashtra (1965) 2SCR 622".
In the above mentioned case Hon'ble Supreme Court of India opined that a person may be held guilty u/s 304A IPC if the rash or negligent act have direct or proximate cause of death or death should have been the direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and that must be the proximate and efficient cause of death without intervention of another's negligence. It must be cause causans, it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non.
In the present case the contract was awarded by Delhi Jal Board to the firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company in which accused persons namely LR.Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma who were its partners. The contract was further assigned for its execution by the firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company to the accused Ajay Sikri. The arguments of the State that accused persons L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma were State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 13 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 responsible to take care and caution while laying down the work of pipe line in accordance with the terms of contract and they committed breach the terms of contract and subletted the contract to accused Ajay Sikri for its execution who faulted to take care and precaution in execution of contract due to which death of the victims was caused and arguments that accused persons namely P.K. Sharma, Dhirnder Joshi and Adesh Kumar officials of Delhi Jal Board were under the obligations to ensure that nobody enters into the area where work was under progress and they had not taken the care due to which death of the victims were caused is not acceptable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court of India in case "Kurban Hussain Mohammedali Rangwala Vs. State of Maharashtra (965) 2SCR 622" as admittedly the contract work was in progress under the supervision of accused Ajay Sikri to whom the contract was assigned by the firm of the accused persons L.R. Sharms, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma. It may be a case of breach of contract but certainly not a case in which prima facie provisions of Section 304A IPC is attracted. Similarly, it cannot be said that prima facie offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC Is committed by the officials of Delhi Jal Board namely P.K. Sharma, Dhirender Joshi and Adesh Kumar. It is correct that officials of Delhi Jal Board failed to supervise that work contract was assigned to sub contractor/accused Ajay Sikri, contrary to the terms of the contract between the firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company and Delhi Jal Board. However, for only this reason it cannot be said that death of the victims were caused by the act which is direct result of rash and negligent act of the officials of Delhi Jal Board or partners of the firm M/s L.R. Sharma & Company. Hence, accused L.R. Sharma, Rajesh Sharma, Chetan Sharma & P.K. Sharma, Dhirender Joshi and Adesh Kumar officials of Delhi Jal Board Stands discharged.
In view of the above noted discussions, prima facie there is sufficient evidence that accused Ajay Sikri committed offence punishable u/s 304 A IPC. Hence, notice u/s 251 CrPC for commissions of offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC is served separately to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial."
18. In the present case, High Court of Delhi in W.P(c) 5027/10 titled as "Gopalpur Victims Association V/s Delhi Jal Board & Others" awarded compensation to the parents of the victim children and DJB paid a compensation amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs to parents of victims and deducted the compensation amount from the bills of M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. and thus, civil liability has already been taken care of by DJB and M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. This court finds no fault in the reasoning given by Ld Magistrate, while discharging respondents State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 14 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 and it cannot substitute its own opinion in place of finding of Magistrate. Even if it is assumed that DJB Officials had not fulfilled their responsibility of Supervising the works at the site or M/s L.R. Sharma & Co. had sublet the works to M/s Akhil Enterprises, their acts cannot be termed as "Cause Causans", and their acts can at best, be termed as "Cause Sine Qua Non". Factual scenario in Uphar Tragedy's case were materially different from the fact of the present case. In Uphar Case, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred Kurban Hussain's Case and finding given therein is not in contradiction to the ratio laid down in Kurban Hussain's Case, whereas in the present case, admittedly victims were trespassers who had entered the bounded area unauthorizedly whereas in Uphaar Tragedy Case the victims were guests and not trespassers. Secondly, partners of concerned Firm in Uphaar Tragedy Case were convicted because of the peculiar facts of the said case, as they were directly responsible for the deaths of the victims and their negligent act was the "causa causans". Partners of concerned firm had made a seating arrangement which created an impediment in the escape of victims causing their deaths. Structural deviations carried out by owners of Uphaar Cinema and the officers of MCD who granted "No Objections" Certificates for running the Cinema hall for years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively despite structural deviations existing in Cinema building and managers of Uphaar Cinema who turned blind eye to such deviations and the threat to public safety caused by them were the direct cause of death of 59 persons and 100 injured in the Cinema Hall. Structural deviations resulting in closure of escape routes in building at the time of incident were the "Cause Causans" attributable to the State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 15 of 16 Case No. 58247/2016 partners of Uphaar Cinema. Whereas In the present case, the alleged acts committed by respondents cannot be termed as 'Causa Causans'.
19. In view of foregoing reasons, this court finds no illegality, procedural irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order of Learned Trial Court. No interference is therefore, called for therein. In the result, revision petition is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court. Revision File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
on 16th January 2016 Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
Tis Hazari Court/Delhi
State vs. L R Sharma & Ors. 16 of 16