Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

B. Material on record discloses that during the examination of PW-

33 (Mr. T. S. Sharma - ADO, Delhi Fire Service), it was found that certain documents which had been marked and which had to be exhibited were found to be torn/mutilated. On 13.01.2003, an application was filed by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor bringing to the knowledge of the Court that important documents that were seized by the investigating agencies during the course of investigation, which were part of the charge-sheet and judicial record, were missing/mutilated and had been tampered with. On 20.01.2003, after scrutinizing all the papers, the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge stating that since certain documents in the Court file had been torn and were missing, therefore, permission must be given for leading secondary evidence. The application was allowed on 31.01.2003 and the prosecution was granted permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the following documents which were found to be missing/mutilated in the Court file.

12. Mr. Krishnan further contends that the Order on charge is clear and unambiguous. He states that the object of conspiracy was to ensure that certain key documents which would bring home the case of Section 304A against the accused in the Main Uphaar case were mutilated and tampered and the only purpose of doing so was to secure the acquittal of the co- accused Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal. Mr. Krishnan states that even though Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal were not successful in their endeavour, it has resulted in delay in the hearing of the matter. He states that the accused entered into conspiracy for committing various offences like criminal breach of trust by a public servant, being the Court Ahlmad - Dinesh Chandra Sharma, and, thereby, committing the act of missing/destructing/tampering/obliterating the documents which were vital for the case in order to give advantage to Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal during trial of the Main Uphaar case. He states that the object was to secure acquittal or delay the trial as much as possible. He further states that the charge is clear as the co-accused P.P. Batra, who acted as a link between Gopal Ansal, Sushil Ansal and the Court Ahlmad, remained in constant touch with the Court Ahlmad and after his dismissal from the service, the Court Ahlmad was provided a job at A-Plus Security Agency that was run by the Petitioners herein at a monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000/- which was much more than his existing salary as a Court Ahlmad. Mr. Krishnan states that in any event, when this order on charge was challenged before this Court in Crl. Rev. P. No. 262/2016, 263/2016, 264/2016, 265/2016, this Court while affirming the said Order had observed as under:

23. A perusal of the material on record indicates that on 13.06.1997, a fire occurred at Uphaar Cinema which resulted in the death of 59 people due to asphyxia and caused injuries to more than 100 people. The investigation had been initially conducted by Delhi Police, but later on it was transferred to the CBI which registered a case, being case No. RC-3 (S)/97/SIC.IV/New Delhi. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 15.11.1997 against 16 persons. When charges were framed, all the documents were intact. Accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma took charge as the Court Ahlmad of the Court which was dealing with the trial on 30.04.2001. During the examination of PW-33 (Mr. T. S. Sharma - ADO, Delhi Fire Service), a letter dated 28.11.1996 was found half-torn from the judicial file. On scrutiny, it was found that certain documents were torn, stained with ink and/or were missing. CBI moved an application apprising the Ld. Trial Court about the tampering. CBI also sought permission from the Ld. Trial Court to lead secondary evidence with respect to the missing/tampered documents, which was subsequently allowed. An application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C was filed for cancellation of the bail that had been granted to the accused in the Main Uphaar case alleging that they were responsible for the said tampering.

25. The charges framed against the accused are that from the date of filing of the charge-sheet in Case No. RC-3 (S)/97/SIC.IV/New Delhi, for offences under Sections 304/304A IPC till 13.01.2003, when the facts of the missing documents came to the knowledge of the Ld. Trial Court, the accused had already entered into criminal conspiracy for committing various offences like criminal breach of trust by a public servant, by causing the disappearance/destruction/obliterating/tampering as well as spreading ink over the documents which were vital for the trial in the case arising out of Case No. RC-3 (S)/97/SIC.IV/New Delhi, to give advantage to Gopal Ansal, Sushil Ansal and H.S. Panwar during the trial of the Main Uphaar case. Charges were framed under Section 120B IPC and Section 409 IPC read with Section 120B and Section 201 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.