Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

f) Document No. D-24 is the seizure memo dated 27.08.1997 along with original cheque No. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 for Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar signed by Sushil Ansal in his favour (Cheque No. 955725 missing);

g) Document No. D-25 is the seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 with cheque No. 805578 dated 30.11.1996 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House, signed by Gopal Ansal in favour of Music Shop, and cheque No. 805590 dated 20.02.1997 for Rs. 2,96,550/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House in favour of M/s Chancellor Club signed by Gopal Ansal (both the cheque and the Seizure memo were missing);

j) Document No. D-34 is a part of one set of loose sheets containing 62 pages regarding correspondence about Uphaar Cinema. Its pages 1 and 2 are missing.

k) Document No. D- 93 is part of a file of DCP containing 132 documents. The documents No.2, 33, 41, 42, 111, 119 and 127 are missing.

34. 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, including the Petitioners herein. 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 Petitioners herein alleging that the Petitioners herein were responsible for the said tampering.

36. The charges framed against the accused is 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 the Petitioners herein and H.S. Panwar during the trial of the 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.