Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on: 17.11.2008 % Pronounced on: 19.12.2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 794/2007 SUSHIL ANSAL APPELLANT THRU : MR.RAM JETHMALANI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH PT. R.K. NASEEM, MR.MANU SHARMA, MS.LATA KRISHNAMURTY, MR.NITIN TITTAL, MR.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATES VS STATE OF DELHI THRU CBI RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA, ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH, MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.846/2007 GOPAL ANSAL APPELLANT THRU : MR.SUSHIL KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE, MR.ADITYA KUMAR, MR.VINAY ARORA, MR.SUDERSHAN SINGH RAWAT, MR.PREM KUMAR AND MR. SANJAY NARAYAN, ADVOCATES VS STATE (THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 2 MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA,MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR.CHETANCHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 830/2007 SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA APPELLANT THRU : MR. OM PRAKASH SHARMA, ADVOCATE VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH,MR.Y.K.SAXENA,MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR.CHETANCHAWLA,MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4/2008 HARSARUP PANWAR APPELLANT THRU MR. S.S.DAHIYA, ADVOCATE VS THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (CBI) NEW DELHI RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL 9/2008 & CRL M.A. 125/2008 N.D. TIWARI APPELLANT THRU : MR. G.P. THAREJA, ADVOCATE VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 3 THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21/2008 BRIJ MOHAN SATIJA APPELLANT THRU : MR.PAWAN NARANG WITH MR.ANISH DHINGRA, MR.PUSKAL GOGOI AND MR.ANUJ HANDA, ADVOCATES. VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIVATION RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33/2008 BIR SINGH (IN J.C.) APPELLANT THRU : MR. SHAHZAD KHAN, ADVOCATE VS STATE OF NCT OFDELHI THRU CBI RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.45/2008 NIRMAL SINGH CHOPRA APPELLANT THRU : MR.K.C.CHOPRA, ADVOCATE WITH MR.NIRMAL CHOPRA AND MS.SMRITI CHOPRA, ADVOCATE VS STATE THRU CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 4 THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.46/2008 RADHA KRISHAN SHARMA APPELLANT THRU : MR.K.C.CHOPRA, ADVOCATE WITH MR.NIRMAL CHOPRA AND MS.SMRITI CHOPRA, ADVOCATE VS STATE THRU CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56/2008 ANAND KUMAR GERA APPELLANT THRU : MS.REBECA M.JOHN, ADVOCATE VS STATE THRU CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADV.FOR CBI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.66/2008 MANMOHAN UNIYAL APPELLANT THRU : MR. RAMESH GUPTA, MR. SANDEEP GOEL, MR. MANISH TIWARI, MR. M. BEGUM, MR. SUMIT ARORA, MR. VIJAY BISNOI, MR. SULEMAN M. KHAN, MR. DEEP KISHORE, ADVOCATES VS STAT E THRU CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 5 THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 17/2008 ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF THE UPHAR TRAGEDY APPELLANT THRU : MR.K.T.S.TULSI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR.K.SULTAN SINGH, MR.RAVINDER SINGH AND MR.MAHEEN PRADHAN, ADVOCATES WITH MS.NEELAM KRISHNAMURTHY, PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF NCT OFDELHI & ORS. RESPONDENTS THRU : MR. P.P.MALHOTRA,ASG, MR. HARISH SALVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. APRAJITA SINGH MR.Y.K.SAXENA, MR.PAWAN SHARMA, MR. CHETAN CHAWLA, MR.GAURAV SHARMA, ADVOCATES. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat I INTRODUCTION Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 6 1.1 In these appeals, the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 13/2007 has been challenged. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), the prosecuting agency, had filed a common charge sheet alleging that the role of different accused numbering about 16 at the beginning of the investigation, amounted to various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Seven accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 36; 9 others were accused to having committed the offence punishable under Section 304A read with sections 337/338 and 36 IPC. Two accused, that is, A-1 & A-2, were additionally charged with offences committed punishable under Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1951. The events, which unfolded and ultimately resulted in the tragedy that occurred on 13.6.1997, are briefly described below. It resulted in a tragic incident in the Uphaar cinema hall, Delhi, during the course of a show which started at 3 PM. Thick smoke, resulting from the fire caused in the parking area of the building resulted in the death of 59 persons who had visited and were viewing the cinema from the balcony and grievously injured 100 others. The cause of death was determined as asphyxiation. 1.2 During the trial, four accused, i.e., R.M. Puri, K.L. Malhotra, Surender Dutt and S.N. Dandona, expired. The cases against them abated. The twelve accused who remained were convicted as charged. They appealed to this Court. During the pendency of their appeals after conclusion of arguments one of the appellants A.K. Choudhary died. His appeal, Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 7 therefore, abated. In addition to the appeals, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, espousing the cause of the near and dear ones of those who lost their lives in the tragedy, preferred a common revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arraying five appellants/accused and contending that the materials on record proved during the trial enabled the Court to return a conviction that such accused/respondents were guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 1.3 The appeals and revisions were initially heard from time to time between 11.12.2007 and 12.9.2008. By an order-dated 10.9.2008 the Supreme Court cancelled the bail of some accused. By the same order, the Court also desired that the appeals and revision should be specially assigned to a Judge who could hear them on a day-to-day basis and dispose them off. Accordingly, the Court on 22.9.2008 set down these cases for hearing, which were conducted for 26 days and counsel for the parties concluded their submissions on 17.11.2008, when the judgment in these matters was reserved. 1.4 It would be useful to recount in brief, the events as found by the Trial Court. The Green Park Theatres (P) Ltd. (GPT Ltd) leased the cinema plot in 1971 from its original lessor R.C.Sood and Company, and submitted modified sanction plans for the cinema building. The initial proposal, reflected in the original sanction plan was to install a 500 KVA transformer to serve the needs of the cinema. The correspondence between the cinema Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 8 management and DVB is to the effect that later, on 2.2.1973, the former agreed for the installation of another transformer in the premises. A subsequent letter clarifies that this was on the understanding that, in case of emergency, the DVB transformer would supply power to the cinema hall. The DVB transformer was in fact installed in 1975; however, no MCD sanction was secured for this purpose. 1.5 The Trial Court held that the inspection room was later permitted to be converted into an 18 seater box for use by the owners in the balcony. The balcony as originally proposed was to contain 250 seats. By a notification, issued in 1976, seats in the balcony were increased thus aggregating to 293. While doing this, the right gangway leading to an exit, which in turn led to a staircase, was substantially blocked, in lieu of which a middle gangway was created. The local government sought to withdraw the notification permitting extra seats, which withdrawal notification of 1979, was challenged by various cinema halls including the Uphaar cinema. The Court while disposing of the petitions, directed the licensing authorities to inspect the cinema hall and determine whether additional seats could be permitted/ provided and also directed them to ensure that there was substantial compliance with the rules. Meanwhile, a proposal was put forth to increase the number of seats in the Uphaar cinema balcony to 302 and the right side exit was sought to be closed by installing a family a box to cater to the growing needs of the owners. Permission was accorded, and instead of the right side exit, another exit was provided on the left side. After considering different Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 9 proposals and issuing a show cause notice saying that the increase in seats would endanger safety, the Licensing Authority permitted the introduction of 15 additional seats thereby resulting in 302 balcony seats. 1.6 In 1983, after a series of fire accidents in the city, the Lt. Governor ordered inspection of all the cinema halls, which resulted in the cancellation of license of Uphaar cinema hall. The cinema halls including Uphaar challenged the move. Initially, the High Court passed a stay order, after which the cinema hall was inspected and certain deficiencies pointed out. The interim order made in the writ petition was later continued and the Court permitted statutory authorities including the Licensing Authority, to approach it for variation in case of any concern regarding safety measures in the cinema halls. Another round of inspection of the cinema hall took place in 1994 and 1996. Each of them listed out various deficiencies and also noted which of the previously noticed deficiencies had been rectified. Meanwhile, the Licensing Authority was issuing temporary permits for two-month periods, and every such permit stated that it was subject to orders of Court. 1.7 On 6th July 1989 a late night fire incident caused extensive damage to both the transformers in the Uphaar cinema and resulted in the escape of gases into the cinema hall. The fire brigade was called in and after quite some time the fire was brought under control. The cinema hall could not operate for about two weeks. Uphaar‘s transformer was replaced, Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 10 which was inspected by the Electrical Inspector. The DVB‘s transformer too was replaced with another one of 1000 KVA capacity; however, there was no inspection by the Electrical Inspector. 1.8 On 17th October 1988 accused No.1 and No.2 resigned as Directors of the company. The Trial Court, however found that they were involved in the management of the cinema in several ways. Reliance was placed upon a plethora of documents to show that the first accused continued to be the licensee of the cinema hall and that both the accused had dominant control over the company‘s management and decisions right up to the date of incident i.e. 13.6.1997. 1.9 In the morning on 13.6.1997 there was a fire in the DVB transformer. This was immediately reported and a team of four employees of DVB was deployed to attend to the defect and repair it. The Trial Court held that accused Bir Singh, Satija and A.K. Gera in not using the crimping machine while replacing the B phase cable, attended the complaint in a negligent manner. The matinee show of ―Border‖ started at 3.00 p.m. 1.10 Between 3.55 and 4.55 p.m. there was a general power shut down; however the cinema show continued. Immediately on resumption of electricity supply at 4.55 p.m. there was intense and heavy sparking in the Uphaar DVB transformer which led to the B phase Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 11 cable detaching, sliding down of the B phase cable, forming an arc, ultimately resulting in rupture of the transformer fin. Through this slit, the transformer oil spilled out, caught fire and consequently set ablaze several vehicles parked nearby in the stilt floor. This fire generated hot thick black smoke, which traveled upwards, accelerated by a chimney effect. 1.11 The smoke entered the hall from the staircases, air conditioning ducts as well as the exits beneath the screen, and the patrons sitting in the auditorium escaped immediately. But the patrons sitting in the balcony found it hard to escape as there were no lights due to the lack of power supply, nor were there any emergency lights, warnings through public address system to evacuate immediately and indication of exits. The closure of the right side exit, elimination of one gangway and the narrowing of another, as well as the introduction of certain seats near the left side exit, together with the bolting of certain doors in the balcony were held to have caused panic and resulted in delayed escape of many patrons. Most of the patrons were subsequently rescued by the fire tenders, but were severely affected by the smoke. The fire was soon declared a major one and rescue operations continued till about 7.30 p.m. The entire accident eventually led to the death of 59 patrons and injury to 100 others. 1.12 The cause of death in the opinion of medical experts was inhalation of smoke, which contained several toxic gases that resulted in asphyxia. Initially, the local police were in Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 12 charge of the investigation, which was later handed over to the Crime Branch of Delhi Police and subsequently in the end of July, the case was transferred to the CBI, which filed its charge sheet on 15.11.1997. 1.13 That be a synopsis of the factual backdrop, for the sake of convenience, it is proposed to give outline of this judgment. Part II of this judgment summarizes the charge sheet file by the CBI and the charges framed against the accused, while Part III is a précis of the oral evidence adduced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court‘s findings are summarized in Part IV and the Part V details the arguments addressed by various counsel during the course of the hearing. In Part VI of this judgment certain preliminary questions of law by the counsel have been addressed and Part VII is the detailed finding on the factual matrix. The law relating to criminal negligence and Section 36 of the IPC has been dealt with in Part VIII. Detailed findings in respect of the Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Petition are contained in Part IX to Part XV. Part XVI contains the conclusions and order on sentence. II. CHARGE SHEET AND CHARGES FRAMED 2.1 The CBI‘s charge sheet alleged that Sh. Sudhir Kumar, on 13.06.97 at about 7.00 a.m. on hearing an explosion, along with other security guards saw smoke in the transformer room, and immediately telephoned the Fire Brigade. The transformer was repaired by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereafter referred to variously as ―DESU‖ or ―DVB‖); the fire was extinguished. The transformer was operated again and during the show of the film Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 13 ―Border‖ from 3 PM to 6 PM at about 5.00 PM a big explosion took place, followed by heavy smoke. The vehicles parked in the parking area caught fire. The complainant immediately informed the Uphaar staff to inform the Police and the Fire Brigade but the smoke spread to Uphaar cinama hall. It was alleged that the transformer which caught fire in the morning was improperly repaired due to which the incident occurred in the evening. The Uphaar Management and staff without bothering for the life and safety of the public, in spite of the defective transformer screened the ―Border‖ film, resulting in death of many people, besides loss to property. For this incident the Uphaar Management and staff are responsible. 2.2 The prosecution alleged that M/s. Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. (hereafter ―GPT‖) was incorporated on 03-02-1972 by S/Shri R.C. Sood, S.K. Sood and J.R. Sood to construct and run a cinema on a plot of land measuring about 2480 sq. yards situated at Green Park Extension Market, New Delhi. That plot of land was leased by Sh. Chiranji Lal Ansal and family. M/s. Chiranji Lal Ansal, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal were appointed as Directors of this company on 26.5.1972. The new Board of Directors also acquired the shares of the earlier patrons of the company, and adopted the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association submitted by the earlier directors. According to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company, it could engage in the business of cinema shows exhibition etc. The original cinema building plan was submitted by Sh. R.C. Sood and Co. in 1970; after Ansals took over the company a revised plan was submitted in 1972, which was Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 14 sanctioned on 22-03-73 and the completion certificate of cinema building was granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter ―MCD‖) on 10-04-73. GPT was issued the licence for running the Uphaar (hereafter ―Uphaar ‖ or the ―cinema hall‖) on 24-4-73 by the Licensing Authority i.e. the Distt. Magistrate and Uphaar was inaugurated on 27-4-73. 2.3 The CBI charge sheet disclosed the Directors of GPT. Shri Sushil Ansal was a director from 26-5-1972 to 17-10-1988. Shri Gopal Ansal was director from 26-5-1972 to 17- 10-1988 and 24.12.94 to 30-6-1995. GPT was renamed as Ansal Theatres and Clubotels Pvt. Ltd. (―Ansal Theatres‖) on 11-03-96. The new Company continued the same business. The Directors of the said company for various periods, were also mentioned in the charge sheet. GPT was issued a licence by Entertainment Tax Officer (hereafter ―ETO‖) on receipt of the approval from the Executive Engineer, PWD (hereafter ―PWD‖) for exhibition of films in the building to accommodate 1,000 persons with 250 seats in the balcony and 750 seats in the hall (located on the first floor, also called ―rear stall‖). The balcony was to be flanked by vertical gangways on both sides and in the middle (near the entry gate) with exit gate on both sides as also a longitudinal gangway. GPT‘s license was granted under Section 10 of Cinematograph Act 1952, subject to compliance with rules framed under Section 12 and 16. The charge sheet relied on Rule 10 of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1953( hereafter ―DCR 1953‖) to show the Licencee‘s responsibility for compliance with the provisions of the Rules and with the conditions of his licence for maintenance of the licenced premises at all times Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 15 and in all respects in conformity with the standards prescribed. It relied also on Rule 12 of the said Rules. It further adverted to Rule 14 of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981 (hereafter ―DCR, 1981‖) authorizing the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) to report whether prescribed fire extinguisher appliances were installed, and in working order and suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. The other rules adverted to were Rule 21, Rule 24, Clauses 6, 7 8 and 10 of the First Schedule to the rules which prescribed the seating and standing area standards, proper exits, gangways, their arrangement and spacing, etc. The charge-sheet further referred to Condition No.2 of the license, which obliges maintainence of every licensed building/place in all respects, in strict conformity with the rules contained in the First Schedule and Part-IV of DCR 1953. Those provisions are also incorporated in the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 1981 (―DCR 1981‖), such as Clauses 3(6), and 9(1). 2.4 It was alleged that Sh.Sushil Ansal, Director had requested DESU for load and power connections to Uphaar on 29.7.72 and agreed to give space for installation of a DESU Sub- station (besides the Uphaar‘s sub-station) in the car parking area of the building. The matter was processed in the DESU; the Ansals agreed to give the space at Rs.11/- per year as rent on condition that in case of emergency DESU would supply power to Uphaar. The 500 KVA Uphaar transformer was installed and energized on 19.10.73. The DVB 750 KVA transformer was installed and energized on 6.9.1975. In 1974 on the request of Shri Sushil Ansal, Director of Uphaar Company, Shri J.C.Rawal, ETO, approved installation of 14 seats Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 16 in the room sanctioned as an ―Inspection Room‖ in the original building plan, by the MCD. On the request of Shri Sushil Ansal, MD of GPT, the licence of Uphaar was renewed for the period 1974-75, 24.3.75 to 23.4.76 and subsequently from 24.4.76 to 23.4.77. 2.5 The Delhi Administration had issued a notification on 30.9.76 (hereafter ―the 1976 Notification‖) under Rule 3 of the DCR 1953, increasing the seats in 40 cinema halls in Delhi including in the Uphaar. By this, Uphaar was sanctioned with 100 additional seats including inter alia 43 seats in the balcony by adding seats in two vertical gangways and introducing a new gangway in the middle in lieu of that. The alteration had to be carried out in the right wing of the Balcony. It was alleged that on 5.11.76, Sh.Gopal Ansal, Director informed the ETO that 43 seats were added in the Balcony. This closed the right hand side vertical gangway leading to the right hand side exit gate as well as the right hand side vertical gangway near the entry gate. He wrote to the ETO informing that they were installing 57 seats (in the rear stall), which was allowed by the ETO on 8.11.78. On 1.12.78 Gopal Ansal informed the ETO that they had installed an additional 42 seats against the sanctioned in the hall and also enclosed a revised seating plan. The ETO, by letter dated 6.12.78 conveyed ―no objection‖ for sale of tickets for the 42 additional seats. The charge sheet mentioned about furnishing of a no objection certificate by the Executive Engineer, PWD. The Assistant Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service, inspected Uphaar and the CFO, sent a letter dated Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl. R.17/2008 Page 17 25.2.77 to Uphaar, mentioning certain defects observed in the functioning of the cinema hall, mainly in relation to fire extinguishers their condition, and maintenance. 2.6 On 24.5.78 Sh.Gopal Ansal, Director by a letter to ETO sought sanction for an additional 8 seater box in the cinema hall for family use. He also enclosed the necessary drawings/plan. This proposal was processed by the ETO; Sh. S.N. Dandona, Executive Engineer by his letter dated 28-6-78 to the ETO, said that after inspection, he was of view that the additional 8 seats proposed as a private box were in accordance with Rules. The then ETO put up a note recommending permission on 24.8.78. The DCP (Lic) on 4-10-78, approved the installation of the 8 seater box. This box closed the right hand side of the balcony, which is in violation of the provisions of Clause 10 of the First Schedule of DCR, 1953. 2.7 The Delhi Administration (Home) issued a Notification on 27.07.79 (hereafter called ―the 1979‖ Notification) under Rule 3, DCR cancelling the previous Notification dated 30.09.76. On 28-7-79 after issue of the said Notification dt. 27.07.79, DCP (Lic) issued a memo to Uphaar , directing withdrawal of additional seats permitted earlier and to report compliance before 4-8-79. The cinema hall filed a writ petition No. 1055 of 1979 in the Delhi High Court and obtained an interim order. As directed by this Court the DCP (Lic) with Sh. S.N. Dandona, Executive Engineer, PWD and the CFO inspected