Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.9 According to the prosecution on receipt of request dt. 22.2.80 from Shri Sushil Ansal and no objection from Shri S.N. Dandona, the licence of Uphaar was renewed up-to 23.4.81. Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 18 The DCR 1981 were brought into force; they enabled inspection of cinema halls by the CFO for confirming existence of provisions from means of escape and fire safety point of view. The licensing authority thereafter started requesting the CFO for such inspection of the Uphaar and other cinema halls and submit observation or no objection for renewal of the licences. The prosecution mentioned about issuance of no objection certificates and license till 23.4.82; a request, on 18.2.83, by Sh. Sushil Ansal, MD, for renewal of the licence from 24.4.83 to 23.4.84 and on receipt of ‗No Objection Certificate' from, PWD and CFO, Uphaar's license being renewed upto 23.4.84 on 23.4.83. It was also alleged that following the incident of fire in the LPG godown at Shakur Basti and Gopala Tower the Lt. Governor by order dt. 7.6.83 directed inspection of all cinema houses in Delhi to detect deviations. Accordingly a joint team of officers of licensing, Delhi Fire Service etc. inspected Uphaar, on 9.6.83, 13.6.83 and 21.6.83 and found structural and fire safety deviations. Uphaar cinema license was suspended by DCP (Lic) on 27.6.1983 for a period of 4 days. Against this the licensee moved the High Court and obtained stay order on 28.6.83. A representation dated 16.7.83 was filed by M/s. GPT Ltd. given to Lt. Governor, Delhi, who constituted a three member Committee. The Committee also pointed out violations in the cinema hall. However, the stay order issued by the High Court of Delhi continued as on the date of the fire incident. On account of the said stay order, temporary permits were issued to Uphaar Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 19 2.10 The charge sheet adverts to the request by Sh. Sushil Ansal on 1.2.1984 for renewal of Uphaar's annual licence, the CFO's opinion about some deviations in the building, and a letter dated 16.5.84 by Sh. Gopal Ansal, Director of GPT Ltd to the CFO on this aspect, stating that they had substantially rectified the deviations. The CFO inspected Uphaar on 31.5.84 and sent a report on 30.7.84. The permit of the cinema hall was renewed from time to time up to 23.4.85 and subsequently up to 23.4.87. In 1986, Delhi Fire Prevention & Fire Safety Act (―the 1986 Act‖) came into force making provisions for fire safety means. Further in 1987 Delhi Fire Prevention & Fire Safety Rules were framed which prescribed the minimum standards for fire prevention and fire safety measures for high rise buildings, higher than 15 meters.

2.13 It was alleged that on 18.3.95 Shri K.L. Malhotra, Dy. General Manager, Uphaar requested the DCP (Lic) to renew the licence from 24.4.95 to 23.4.96. The DCP (Lic) obtained no objection from the ADO and Shri Dutt, STO of Delhi Fire Service. The DCP (Lic) wrote to the Zonal Engineer, MCD, on 20.4.95 to inspect Uphaar for renewal of licence and Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma the then Administrative Officer, MCD, South Zone unauthorizedly issued a no objection certificate to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Lic) on 28.9.95 for renewal of licence of Uphaar cinema. This no objection certificate was personally collected by Sh. K.L. Malhotra, DGM, on the same day i.e. 28.9.95; on the basis of the said no objection certificate from Shri Sham Sunder Sharma, Administrative Officer, MCD and one from Shri P.K. Sharma, Assistant Div. Officer and Shri Surender Dutt, Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service dt. 4.5.95 with reference to some inspection carried out by the aforesaid two officers of DFS on 29.4.95 in presence of Shri K.L. Malhotra the licensing authority renewed the temporary permits of Uphaar up to 31.3.96. Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 22 2.14 The charge sheet alleged that on 23.2.96 Mrs. Vimla Mehra, Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) wrote to the MCD, CFO and DDA for physical inspection of Uphaar and 12 other cinema halls and submit a report to enable moving the High Court for vacation of the stay. The licensing authority sent reminders on 15.3.96, 19.3.96 and 12.4.96 asking the MCD to inspect the premises and sent a report. The Uphaar was inspected by a team of Engineers of the Building Department, MCD on 29.4.96 who submitted a report on 30.4.96 to the Executive Engineer (Building) mentioning about deviations. The MCD wrote to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) on 23.5.96 mentioning the deviations found in Uphaar with reference to those noticed in 1983. 2.15 The charge sheet alleged that on 1.3.96 Sh. K.L. Malhotra, Deputy General Manager Uphaar wrote to DCP (Lic) for renewal of the cinema license from 24.4.96 to 23.4.97 and enclosed an affidavit of Sh. R.M. Puri, Director to the effect that he was the licensee of Uphaar and had not let out the cinema hall to anybody. On 11.3.96, DCP Licensing) asked the CFO, Delhi Electrical Inspector, Zonal Engineer (Building), MCD South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi to inspect Uphaar and report. Further that on 9.4.96 Sh. H.S. Panwar, Divisional Officer and Sh. Surender Dutt, Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service inspected Uphaar in presence of Sh. K.L. Malhotra, Dy. General Manager. Sh. H.S. Panwar sent an inspection report dt. 18.4.96 to the DCP (Lic) stating that the fire fighting arrangements at Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 23 Uphaar were satisfactory and suggesting that at least two trained persons must be available during the exhibition of films. He recorded no objection to the renewal of licence of the Uphaar cinema house from fire safety and means of escape points of view. Mrs.Vimla Mehra, Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) wrote a letter dated 23.7.96 to the Commissioner, MCD followed by reminder dt. 8.8.96, requesting for annual inspection of Uphaar, and other cinema halls and for a report in the prescribed proforma. On 2.9.96 Sh. M.M. Dass, Executive Engineer (Building) Head Quarters, MCD sent a letter to the ACP stating that they had already sent a report in respect of 13 cinema buildings including Uphaar mentioning the deviations on 23.5.96 and also enclosed a copy of that letter. The DCP (Lic.) sent a reminder-dated 20.9.96 to the Zonal Engineer (Building), MCD, South Zone, Green Park to send a reply to their request for inspection. Another letter dated 3.10.96 was also sent by Ms. Vimla Mehra to the MCD for annual inspection. Sh. H.S. Panwar on 18.11.96 wrote a letter to Manager, Uphaar Cinema stating that he and Sh. Surender Dutt, Station Officer inspected Uphaar on 4.11.96 to check the existing fire safety arrangements in presence of Sh. Malhotra, Dy. General Manager and Sh. R.K. Sharma, Manager. He mentioned about some deviations. In reply to this Sh. Vimal Nagpal sent a letter-dated 28.11.96 to the Divisional Officer, DFS, stating that the necessary rectifications had been carried out and requesting for issuance of NOC. The Uphaar was re-inspected by Sh. H.S. Panwar, Divisional Officer and Sh. Surender Dutt, Station Officer, DFS on 22.12.96 in the presence of Sh. K.L. Malhotra, DGM and an inspection report dated 24.12.96 was sent by Shri H.S. Panwar to the DCP Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 24 (Lic.) stating that they had no objection for renewal of the license from fire safety and means of escape point of view. On 22.12.96 on the date on which the inspection was reported to have been carried out, Shri H.S. Panwar was on casual leave as per the records. 2.16 The charge sheet alleged that Shri N.D. Tiwari, Administrative Officer unauthorizedly and without inspection issued a ―No Objection Certificate' dated 25.9.96 which was collected by Shri K.L. Malhotra, Dy. General Manager of Uphaar. Further that on the basis of the said NOC dated. 18.4.96 and 24.12.96 of Shri H.S. Panwar and Sh. Surender Dutt of Delhi Fire Service, and that issued by Sh. N.D. Tiwari, Administrative Officer, MCD temporary permits of Uphaar were renewed up to 31.3.97 by DCP (Lic). The charge sheet alleged that on receipt of letter dated 1.3.97 of Shri K.L. Malhotra, DGM, Uphaar and affidavit dated 10.3.97 of Shri R.M. Puri, Director, DCP (Lic) on 21.4.97 asked the CFO, Electrical Inspector, Zonal Engineer (Building), MCD, South Zone and the Zonal Health Officer to inspect Uphaar and send reports. On 12.5.97 Shri H.S. Panwar, Divisional Officer, Shri Surender Dutt, Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service inspected Uphaar and sent an inspection report dated. 15.5.97 stating that the fire fighting arrangements found at the time of inspection must be maintained by the licensee at all time and at least two trained persons must be available during the exhibition of films. Shri H.S. Panwar and Sh. Surender Dutt issued a no objection letter to the renewal of the license of Uphaar Cinema hall from fire safety and means of escape points of view for the year 1.4.97 to 31.3.98. In the inspection Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 25 proforma Shri H.S. Panwar and Shri Surender Dutt mentioned that two trained fire men were available, emergency lights, gangway lights, exit lights, public address system and underground water tank were provided. Again on 6.2.97 the DCP (LIC) sent a letter to the Commissioner, MCD for annual inspection of Uphaar but no inspection was carried out by the MCD and un-authorizedly a NOC was sent by Shri N.D. Tiwari, Administrative Officer on 23.9.96 as was done by Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, AO on 28.9.95. However, temporary permits of Uphaar were renewed from 1.4.97 upto 31.5.97.

3.20 In cross examination, this witness deposed about lack of awareness from where the list of deviations received with letter Ex. PW-17/A was obtained. He stated that the area of the stilt floor was 4811.4 square feet. According to him, the area for parking had only been specified, but not calculated. The Upahaar cinema was constructed according to the 1959 Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 55 Building bye laws. In terms of Bye law 54(2), subject to provision for ventilation, partition in basements were permissible. No objection with regard to standard of ventilation was however, raised when the cinema was inspected. He mentions that there were 11 deviations when the building was inspected. Deposing about the creation of additional space between the stilt floor and the auditorium flooring, he stated that this was in gross violation of the sanctioned plan. The inspection found that wooden planks had been removed and rolled steel joists were still existing, and fixed at a height of 7-8 feet. The third objection pertained to letting out of third floor two four concerns; the sanction was for administration of the cinema. The area for such office was 53.6' x 40.6'; the existence of a homeopathic dispensary by providing a wooden plank was not only unauthorized but also a fire hazard. In the last inspection, it was found that the dispensary was located at the back of the transformer room on the ground floor; this statement was clarified, after seeing the sanctioned building plan, so as to say that the dispensary was behind the low tension room, adjacent to the transformer room. The witness deposed to rectification of Objection Nos 6 and 7. He delineated the procedure for proposing changes in sanction, saying that if any portion is to be deleted, it has to be shown in yellow; the portion to be altered is to be in red, and existing portion, to be retained, should be shown in green. He deposed that completion certificate is known as occupancy certificate, and it shows details of accommodation existing on a plot at the time of issuance of completion certificate.

4) They ran the show on the face of violations which showed their knowledge that in case of an untoward happening, they could be liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The acts of the three accused in permitting the shows without rectifying the violations, that were, structural, electrical and building deviations, with the resulting death of 59 persons made them guilty of an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

4.3 Shri Manmohan Uniyal, accused, charged for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 36 IPC was convicted as charged. The trial court held that as a gate-keeper on duty he was under an obligation to guard and see that the doors were not bolted, and patrons could get out of the cinema hall in the case of an emergency without hindrance. The evidence established that doors were bolted and one of the doors had to be broken open. This imputed knowledge that in the event of such an occurrence, death would follow. The attendance register established that accused was there when the incident took place. His action in running away without unbolting the doors, implied knowledge that such acts would inevitably cause death, it therefore amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.