ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY versus SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 614, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Body
[2017] I S.C.R. 614 
A 
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER 
(Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 712-714 of 2015) 
IN 
(Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 of20 I 0) 
WITH 
(Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 770-773 of2015) 
IN 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 597, 598, 605 and 606.of2010) 
FEBRUARY 09, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]. 
Penal Code, 1860 - >S. 304-A, 337, 338 rlw s. 36 - Criminal 
negligence - Uphaar· tragedy case - Review pet.ition - Seeking 
modification of the sentence awarded to the accused- Al (Sushi/ 
Ansal) and A2 (Gopal Ansal) - On fac{s, High Court upheld the 
conviction of A I and A 2 u/ss. 304-A, 337 and 338 read withs. 36 
however, reduced the sentence u!s. 304-A to one year rigor.ous 
imprisonment - In appeal before this Court, Thakur, J. upheld the 
sentences awarded - Howeve1; Misra, J. opined that sentence 
awarded by the High Court needs to be enhanced to the maximum 
period of two years u!s. 304-A but in lieu of additional period of 
sentence of one year, the substantial amount of fine to be imposed 
for public purposes - Considering the age of A I, sentence already 
undergone by A I treated as sufficient -Al and A2 to pay Rs. 50 
crores each in lieu of enhanced sentence of one year - On Reference 
to three judge Bench, the view of Misra, J. upheld but the fine redqced 
to Rs 30 crores each - In view of age related complications of Al, 
period already undergone sufficient in
case he pays Rs. 30 crores -
On principle of parity, same benefit extended to A 2 though he did 
not have any age related complications - Review of the said 
order- Held: Per Kurian, J. (for Got:oi, J. and ltimselj): Imposition 
of expiatory fine in addition to incarceration would also serve the 
614
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER 
penalogica/ purpose of deterrence having regard also to 
recidivism - Having regard to the wide discretion available to the 
court u/s. 304-A, and the High Court and this Court, in appeal, had 
limited the imprisonment to one year, the punishment which would 
serve deterrence and public purpose by both imprisonment and 
exemplary fine, would be an appropriate punishment - In view of 
the gravity of the offence and the illegal gains made by accused, 
fine imposed to the tune of Rs.60 crores not excessive and would be 
used for public purpose - Prayer for review of sentence of Al 
rejected - A2 s sentence of one year imprisonment maintained but 
is also sentenced to afine of Rs. 30 crores - Per Goel, J.: Order of 
the Court to be seen as a whole and cannot be split into different 
sentences - Operative part of the order shows that the Court has 
tried to balance the interest of justice and while holding that sentence 
was required to be enhanced, it was added that in lieu of additional 
period of enhanced sentence, substantial amount of fine was required 
to be imposed and the fine was to be utilized for setting up of or 
upgrading the trauma centres of the Delhi Government hospitals -
There is neither any illegality nor any impropriety warranting review 
of said order passed by this Court. 
Citations in the order of Kurian, J .. (for Gogoi, J. and himseIO 
Sushi/ Ansal v. State Through Central Bureau of
Investigation (2014) 6 SCC 173 : ;?014 (9) SCR 571; 
Sushi/ Ansa/ v. State Through Central Bureau of 
Investigation (2015) 10 SCC 359 : 2015 (9) SCR 552; 
State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev 
Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450 : 2012 (12) SCR 881 -
referred to. 
Citations in the order of Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 
Guru Basavara/v. State of Karnataka 
(2012) 8 SCC 
734 : 2012 (8) SeR 189; Pritam _Chauhan v. State (Govt. 
of N(;T of Delhi) (2014) 9 Sec 637; State of Punjab v. 
Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 : 2015 (3) SeR 
590; State of Punjab v.. Ba!;~ind~r Singh (2012) 2 Sec 
182 : · 2012 (1) SeR 45; State of Karnataka v. 
Sharanappa Basanagouda Ar<,;oudar (2002) 3 SCC 
738 : (2002) SCC (Cri) 704 : 2002 (2) SCR 692; Alister 
Anthony Pareira v. Siate of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 
615 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G
616 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
648 : 2012 (1) SCR 14S; Rattan Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 (1) SCR 846; State 
of MP. v. Surendra Singh (201S) 1 SCC 222; Ankush 
Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 
770: 2013 (8) SCR 863; State of MP. v. Mehtab (2015) 
5 SCC 197 : 2015 (1) SCR 1116; Manish Jalan v. State 
of Karngtaka (2008) 8 SCC 225; V.K. Verma v. CBI 
(2014) 3 SCC 485 : 2014 (1) SCR 1063; Labh Singh v. 
State of Haryana (2012) 11 SCC 690; Nand Lal v. State 
of Uttarakhand (2010) 4 SCC 562; Beena Philipose. 
v. State of Kera/Ii (2006) 7 SCC 414: 2006 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 720; Devi Ram v. State of Haryana (2002) 10 SCC 
76; Beyas Mahto v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 509; 
R. V. Lyngdoh v. State (Delhi) Sp/. Estt. (1999) 9 SCC 
645; Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. vs. Union 
of India (2010) 5 SCC 388: 2010 (3) SCR 1160 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
In the order.of Kurian, J. (for Goi:oi, J. and himself) 
2014 (9) SCR 571 
referred to 
Para2 
201S (9) SCR S52 
referred to 
Para 13 
2012 (12) SCR 881 
referred to 
Para 18 
In the order of Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 
2012 (8) SCR 189 
referred to 
Para5 
(2014) 9 sec 637 
referred to 
Paras 
201S (3) SCR 590 
referred to 
Para5 
2012 (1) SCR 4S 
referred to 
Paras 
2002 (2) SCR 692 
referred to 
Paras 
2012 (1) SCR14S 
referred to 
Paras 
1980 (1) SCR 846 
referred to 
Para5 
c201s) 1 sec 222 
referred to 
Paras 
2013 (8) SCR 863 
referred to 
Paras
201S (1) SCR1116 
referred to 
Para6
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
617 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER 
c29os) s sec 225 
referred to 
Para6 
2014 (1) SCR 1063 
referred to 
Para6 
c2012) 11 sec 690 
referred to 
Para6 
c2910) 4 sec 562 
referred to 
Para6 
2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 720 
referred to 
Para6 
(2002) 10 sec 76 
referred to 
Para6 
(2900) 9 sec 509 
referred to 
Para6 
(11)99) 9 sec 645 
referred to 
Para6 
2010 (3) SCR 1160 
referred to 
Para6 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition 
(Cr!:) Nos. 712-714 of 2015 iri Criminal Appeal Nos. 600-602 of2010. 
K. T. S. Tulsi, Salman K.hurshid, Ms. Rebecca John; Ashok H. 
Desai, Harish N. Salve, K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., Jay ant Kumar 
Mehta, Sukant Vikram, Anshumaan Sahni, Navandeep Matta, Abhinav 
Ankit, Sanjay Jain, Ms. Azra Rehman, Ms. Roshni W. Anand, Ms. Alisha 
Panda, Vikas Aggarwal, San jay Narayan, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Lalit 
Bhasin, Rakesh U. Upadhyay, Ms. Aparajita, T. A. Khan, Mukesh Kumar 
Maroria, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, T. A. Khan (For B. K. Prasad), B. V. 
Bairam Das, Advs., for the appearing parties. 
The following Orders of the Court were delivered: 
ORDER 
KURIAN,~: I. R'view Petitioners seek modification mainly 
of the sentence awarded to the accused -
Su~hil Ansal and Gopal Ansal 
as per the Orders of this Court dated 19.08.2015 and 22.09.2015 in the 
Criminal Appeals. It is the main contention of Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned 
Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that 
there is no provision
for substitution of sentence by fine. It is also the 
case of the Review Petitioners that the accused- I and 2 deserve the 
maximum sentence under Section 304 ·A of The Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). Having also heard Mr. 
Ashok H. Desai, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Mr .. K. 
Radhakrishnan and Ms. Rebecca John, learned Senior Counsels appearing 
on both sides, we feel it necessary to refer to the background of the 
case as reflected in the various orders passed by this Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
2. In Sushil Ansal v. State Through Central Bureau of 
Investigation', at paragraphs-2 7 and 28, this Court dealt with the 
conviction and sentence of the trial court: 
"27. In conclusion and on the basis of the findings recorded by 
it, the trial court convicted Sushi! Ansal (A-]) and Gopal Ansal 
B 
(A-2) for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 
304-A. 337 and 338· read with Section 36 IPC and sentenced 
each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period 
of two years with a fine of Rs 5000 and a default sentence of six 
months. They were also convicted under Section 14 of the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Cinematograph Act. 1952 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1000 
or undergo two months' imprisonment in default.All the sentences 
were directed to run concurrently. The trial court further convicted 
S.S. Sharma (A-13) and N.D. Tiwari (A-14) who were officials 
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi apart from H.S. Panwar 
(A-15), Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service under the above 
provisions and sentenced them similarly to undergo two years' 
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000 besides default 
sentence of six months' imprisonment. In addition, the trial court 
found the charges framed against the Managers of GPT, namely, 
R.K. Sharma (A-5), N .S. Chopra (A-6) and Assistant Manager 
· Ajit Choudhary (A-7) as well as gatekeeper Manmohan, Uniyal 
(A-8) under Section 304 read with Section 36 IPC proved
and 
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 
seven years with a fine of Rs 5000 and a default sentence of six 
months. 
28. B.M. Satija (A-9) andA.K. Gera (A-I 0) who happened to 
be DVB Inspectors at the relevant point of time· and Bir Singh 
(A-11) who happened to be DVB Senior Fitter were similarly 
convicted under Section 304 read with Section 36 !PC and 
sentenced to undergo seven years' dgorous imprisonment besides 
a fine of Rs 5000 and a default sentence of six months' 
G 
·. imprisonment. Proceedings against R.M. Puri (A-3), Director of 
GPT and K.L. Malhotra (A-4) Deputy General Manager, S.N. 
Dandona (A-12) Executive Engineer, PWD and Surender Dutt 
(A-16) Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service, all of whom died during 
the pendency of the trial, were held to have abated. Not only that, 
H 
'(20I4)ti sec 173
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
619 
SUSHJL ANSAL AND ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
the trial court directed further investigation into the matter under 
A 
Section 1 73(8) CrPC in. regard to other persons including Amod 
Kanth, DCP (L) for allowing the Cinema to function on temporary 
permits and for not demanding the detailed inspection reports 
before issuing such permits." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
B 
3. Paragraph-29 deals with details of appeals filed in High Court: 
"29. Aggrieved by thejudgment and order passed against them, 
all the 12 accused persons convicted by the trial court preferred 
appeals before the Delhi High Court. The Association of Victims 
of Uphaat Tragedy also filed a revision petition challenging the 
judgment and order of the trial court to the extent that the .same 
convicted the accused persons only for offences punishable under 
Section 304-A IPC instead of Section 304 Part II !PC." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
4. Paragraph-45 deals with the order passed by the High Court: 
"45. The High Court on the above findings 
upheld the conviction 
of Sushi! Ansal (A-I) and Gopal Ansal (A-2). It also upheld the 
conviction ofH.S. Panwar (A-15) for offences punishable under 
Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 read with Section 36 !PC but reduced 
the sentence awarded to them under Section 304-A to one year's 
rigorous imprisonment without interfering with the fine imposed· 
. by the trial court. The High Court al~o reduced the sentence 
awarded to the aforementioned
three appellants under Section 
33 7 to three months' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 
33 8 to one year.'s rigorous imprisonment with the direction that 
the sentences shall run concurrently including the sentence awarded 
to the Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2) under Section l 4 of the 
Cinematograph Act for which too the said two accused persons 
were convicted." 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(Emphasis supplied) 
G 
5. Paragraph-48 deals with the appeals before this Court: 
"48. The appeals have been filed before us by all those 
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the High 
Court, except for the convicted gatekeeper, M_anmohan Uniyal 
H
620 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) l S.C.R. 
(A-8) who has served out the sentence awarded to him by the 
courts below. We also have before us Criminal Appeals Nos. 605-
616 of2010 filed by CBI challenging the acquittal recorded by the 
High Court in favour of the four persons mentioned above. The 
Association ofVictims ofUphaar Cinema has also filed Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 600-602 of2010 in which they have challenged the 
order of acquittal recorded by the High Court and prayed for a 
retrial of the accused persons for the offence punishable under 
Section 304 Part II !PC." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
6. In short, the High Court upheld the conviction of Sushi I Ansal-A-
1 and GopalAnsal-A-2 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 read with 36 
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence under Section 
304-A !PC, to one year rigorous imprisonment, under.Section 337 to 
three months, and under Section 338 to one year. All sentences were to 
run conceurrently. 
7. All convicted persons filed appeals before this Court. Central 
Bureau of Investigation also filed Appeal Nos. 605-616 of2010. The 
Association of Victims ofUphaar Cinema filed Appeal Nos.600-602 of 
2010 challenging the acquittal and for retrial of all accused for the offence 
punishable under Section 304 Part II of!PC. 
8. Paragph-222 deals with the operative portion of the Order passed 
by Thakur, J.: 
"222.1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 597 and 598 of 2010 filed by 
Sushi! Ansal (A-1) and GopalAnsal
(A-2) respectively are hereby 
dismissed upholding the conviction and sentences awarded to them. 
222.2. Criminal Appeal No. 599 of20 I 0 filed by the Divisional 
Fire Officer, H.S. Panwar {A-15) is also dismissed upholding his 
conviction and sentence. 
222.3. Criminal Appeals Nos. 617-627 of2010 and No. 604 of 
G 
2010 filed by DVB Inspector B.M. Satija (A-9) and Senior Fitter 
Bir Singh (A-11) are partly allowed to the extentthat the conviction 
of the said two appellants is altered to Sections 337 and 338 read 
with Section 36 JPC without interference with the sentence 
awarded to them. 
H 
222.4. Criminal Appeals Nos. 605-616 of2010 filed by CBI
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
621 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
and Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 of20 I 0 filed by the Association 
A 
of Victims ofUphaar Tragedy are dismissed." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
9. Gyan Sudha Misra, J., at paragraph-262, was of the view that 
additional sentence of one year should be awarded but the same could 
be substituted by substantial amount of fine. 
"262. Hence, I am of the view that the interest of justice to some 
extent would be served by imposing on the appellant-accused a 
substantial fine and not merely a jail sentence. Thus, while the 
sentence of one year imposed by the High Court is upheld, the 
additional sentence of one year further while allowing the appeal 
of AVUT, is fit to be substituted by a substantial sum of fine to be 
shared equally by the appellants Sushi! Ansal and Gopal Ansal 
along with DVB which also cannot absolve itself from 
compensating the victims of Uphaar tragedy, represented by 
AVUT." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
I 0. At paragraph-263, it has been further held that the sentence 
already undergone by A-I-Sushi! Ansal should be treated as sufficient. 
"263. Thus, while I uphold the conviction and sentence of 
Appellant 2 Gopal Ansal in Criminal Appeal No. 598 of20 l 0 who 
was in fact conducting the business ofrunning the Uphaar Theatre 
. and had greater degree of responsibility to ensure safety of the 
. cinema viewers, the appellant Sushi! Ansal in Criminal Appeal 
No. 597 of 20 I 0 was
primarily a licensee who was conducting 
the business and running Uphaar Theatre essentially through his 
brother A-2·Gopal Ansal. Hence. while the sentence of one.year 
awarded in Criminal Appeal No. 597 of2010 to Sushi I Ansal is fit 
to be upheld, the sentence already undergone by him may be 
treated as sufficient in the said appeal as he has already served a 
major part of the sentence and-in spite of dismissal of his appeal, 
he would at the most serve the balance three months' sentence 
further along with remission." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
11. At paragraph-267, it was further ordered that A-I and A-2 will 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
pay Rs.50 crores each in lieu of the enhanced sentence of one year. 
H
622 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
"267. Therefore, for the reasons recorded herein before, I am 
of the view that in lieu of the enhanced sentence of a period of 
one year which I allow in the appeals preferred by AVUT and 
CBI, the same be substituted with a fine of Rs 100 crores (one 
hundred crores) to be shared and paid by A-1 Sushi I Ansal and A-
.1 Gopal Ansal in equal measure i.e .. Rs 50 crores each and Rs 
I 00 crores in all, and shall be paid by way of a demand draft 
issued in the name of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court 
oflndia which shal) be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised 
hank and shall be spent on the construction of a trauma centre to 
he built in the memory ofUphaar Victims at any suitable place at 
Dwarka in New Delhi as we are informed that Dwarka is an 
accident-pron.e area but does not have any governmental 
infrastructure or public health care centre to treat accident 
victims ... . " 
(Emphasis supplied) 
12. Order of the Court, to the extent relevant, is at paragraph-270.4: 
"270.4. Criminal Appeals Nos. 597-599 of 2010 filed by the 
appellants in those appeals and Criminal Appeals Nos. 605, 606 
and 613 of 2010 filed by the State and Criminal Appeals Nos. 
600-602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar 
Tragedy to the extent that the said appeals involve the question of 
quantum of sentence to be awarded to the convicted appellants in 
the appeals mentioned above shall :Stand
referred to a three-Judge 
Bench." 
(Emphasis supplied) 
13. The Order by the three-Judge Bench is reported in Sushi! Ansal 
v. State Throngh Central Bureau of Investigation'. Paragraphs-] 7 
and 1 8 are relevant: . 
"17. We are conscious of the fact that matter of this magnitude 
may call for a higher sentence, but the Court has to limit itself to 
the choice available under the law prescribing sentence. The fact 
that remains is that the maximum sentence prescribed under the 
la.w is period of two years and the High Court had chosen, in the 
facts and circumstances pf the case, to award sentence of one 
year which has been approved by Thakur, J. In the dissenting 
'(2015) 10 sec 359
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
opinion by Misra, J. the modification is that the sentence be 
enhanced but giving an option to pay substantial amount in lieu of 
the enhanced sentence with further direction to reduce the jail 
sentence to the period already undergone, ifthe amount of fine in 
lieu of enhanced sentence is paid. 
18. After having considered the facts of.the case, the views 
expressed by both the learned Judges and the arguments advanced 
by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, we are in 
agreement with the view expressed by Misra. J. that sentence 
awarded by the High Court needs to be enhanced to the maximum 
period of two years under Section 304-A IPC but in lieu of additional 
period of sentence of one year. the substantial amount of fine 
needs to be imposed. We are further of the view that in case the 
said amount of fine is paid. the sentence should be reduced to the 
period already undergone, as indicated by Misra. J. in the case of 
Sushi! Ansal (A- I). On the principle of parity, the case of Gopal 
Ansal (A-2)will stand on the same footing as that of Sushi I Ansal 
(A-ll. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice 
would meet if the appellants are directed to· pay fine so that the 
amount of fine can be used either for the purpose of setting up a 
trauma centre in NCT of Delhi or for upgrading trauma centres 
of hospitals managed in NCT of Delhi by the Government of
Delhi_;, 
(Emphasis supplied) 
.14. Thus, the emerging position is-Both Thakur, J. and Gyan Sudha 
Misra, J. were.in agreement as far as minimum period of one year 
623 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
sentence is concerned. However, Gyan Sudha Misra, J. was also of the 
F 
view that in the nature of the tragedy and the negligence on the part of 
A-1 and A-2 and Delhi Vidyut Board, they should pay a hefty amount of 
fine for the purpose of construction of a traunia c·entre. Yet,"Gyan Sudha 
Misra, J. took I)ote of the fact that Sushi I Ansal has served major part of 
the sentence and considering also his age, took the view that the sentence 
already undergone by him should be treated as sufficient. 
G 
)5. A close reading of the Order pass-ed by Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 
would show that recovery of a large amount by way of fine to be used 
for the trauma centre was the underlying idea in enhancing the 
.punishment. The three-Judge Bench, on Reference, also took.the view 
that in larger public interest, the view taken by Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 
H
624 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
should be upheld, but reduced the fine to Rs. 30 crores each, apparently 
keeping in mind that the victims had already been compensated and that 
even, according to Gyan Sudha Misra, J.,A-1 and A-2 and Delhi Vidyut 
Board are liable to pay the fine (paragraph-262). 
16. 1 ~us, Gyan Sudha Misra, J. and three-Judge Bench took the 
view that as far as A-I-Sushi! Ansal is concerned, taking note of his age 
related complications, the period already undergone by him should be 
sufficient, in case he pays Rs.30 crores .. 
17. On principle of parity, the· same benefit was extended to A-2-
Gopal Ansal; but he never had a case of any age related complications. 
Therefore, it is not a case to apply the principle of parity. To that extent, 
the Order needs to be reviewed. 
18. Yet another error is the substitution of sentence by fine. At 
paragraph-18 of the Order under Review, agreeing with the view 
expressed by Gyan Sudha Misra, J ., the Bench enhanced punishment to 
the maximum period of two years but substituted the additional period of 
one year with substantial amount of fine. The idea was to impose a 
heavy fine and utilize the same forthe benefit of the public, as has bS"en 
done in the case of State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. 
Sanjeev Nanda', popularly known as "BMW hit and run case". In that 
case, the conviction under Section 304-A was altered to 304 Part-II but 
reduced the period of sentence to
the one already undergone and the 
court imposed a fine of Rs.SO lakhs to be used for the benefit of the 
victims in hit and run cases. There was also an order on two years of 
community service. In the peculiar facts of the present case, in larger 
public interest, Gyan Sudha Misra, J. and the three-Judge Bench 
essentially only thought it appropriate to modify the punishment to 
imposition of heavy fine in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. 
19. Imposition of expiatory fine iri addition to incarceration would 
also serve the penalogical purpose of deterrence having regard also to 
recidivism. It may also be noted that under Section 304 A off PC, either 
imprisonment only or with fine or fine alone, is the prescribed punishment. 
Having regard to the wide discretion available to the court under Section 
304 A, and having regard to the fact that the High Court and this Court, 
in appeal, had limited the imprisonment to one year, in our view, the 
punishment which would serve deterrence and public purpose by both 
'(2012) s sec 450
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER [KURIAN, J.] 
imprisonment and exemplary fine, would be an appropriate punishment 
in a case like this. Under Section 63 of!PC where no sum is expressed 
to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is 
liable is unlimited, but should not be excessive. Having regard to the 
gravity of the offence and the illegal gains made by the accused, the fine 
imposed to the tune ofRs.60 crores is not excessive. However, there is 
tio provision under the IPC for substitution of sentence by fine. The only 
provision is on default sentence under Section 65 of IPC. Hence, that 
·part also requires correction. 
20. Thus, the Orflers dated 19.08.2015 and 22.09.2015 stand 
reviewed in the manner indicated herein below: 
(i) 
In the case of A- I -Sushi! Ansal, having regard to the 
advance age related complications, as appreciated by the 
three-Judge Bench in the Order dated 22.09.2015, and 
having regard to the fact that, of the one year period imposed 
by the High Court, he has already undergone around nine 
months including remission, his sentence of imprisonment 
is reduced to the period undergone. However, he is also 
sentenced to a fine of Rs.30 crores. Thus, in the peculiar 
facts of the case, as appreciated by Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 
and the three-Judge Bench, we decline the prayer for review 
of sentence on A 1-Sushil Ansal. 
(ii) 
In the case of A-2-Gopal Ansal, the period of sentence of 
one
year imprisonment, as imposed by the High Court and 
concurred both by Thakur, J. and Gyan Sudha Misra, J., is 
maintained, but he is also sentenced to a fine ofRs.30 crores. 
625 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(iii) 
The fine thus recovered should be utilized for the purposes 
F 
indicated by Gyan Sudha Misra, J. in the Order dated 
05.03.2014. 
(iv) 
In default of payment of fine, both A-I andA-2 shall undergo 
six months imprisonment, the maximum permissible under 
Section 65 of IPC. 
G 
(v) 
A-2-Gopal Ansal is granted four weeks time to surrender 
and serve the remaining sentence. 
H
·, 
626 
SU.PREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
A 
ORDER 
I. These Review P~titions seek review of the Orders of this 
Court dated 19.08.2015 & 22.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 600-602 
and Criminal Appeal Nos. 597,598, 605 and 606 of20 I 0. Since arguments 
have been addressed only with regard to the sentence awarded to accused 
B 
Sushi I Ansal and Gopal Ansal, consideration in this order is confined to 
this aspect. 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
2. The matters arise out of an incident dated 13.06.1997 of fire 
in Uphaar Cinema, Delhi wherein 59 persons lost their life and about 
I 00 persons were injured. On charge of criminal negligence, apart from 
others, Sushi! Ansal the licencee for running the cinema and his brother 
Gopal Ansal who was in fact conducting the business of cinema, were 
convicted under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 read with Section 36, !PC. 
The Trial Court sentenced them to undergo imprisonment upto two years 
which was reduced by the High Court to one year. A two Judge bench 
of ihis Court, dealing with their appeals against conviction and sentence, 
vide order dated 05.03.2014, upheld the conviction but differed on the 
quantum of sentence. The said judgment is reported in Sushi/ Ansal 
versus State Through CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. In view of difference 
of opinion the matter was referred to the three Judge Bench· "to the 
extent that the said appeals involve the question of quantum of 
sentence to be awarded to the convicted appellants in the appeals 
mentioned
above". 
3. The Three Judge Bench vide order dated 19.08.2015 held as 
follows: 
..... the senrence awarded by the High Court needs to be 
enhanced to .the maximum period of two years under Section 
304-A but in iieu of additional period of sentence of one 
year, the substantial amount of fine needs to be imposed. We 
are further ofthe view that in case the said amount of fine is 
·paid, the sentence should· be reduced to the period already 
undergone, as indicated by Misra, J. in the case of Sushi/ 
Ansal (Al). On the principle of parity, the case of Gopal 
Ansal (A2) will stand on the same footing as that of Sushii 
Ansa{ (Al). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that ends 
of justice would meet if the appellants are directed to pay 
fine so that the amount of fine can be used either for the 
purpose of setting up a Trauma Centre in NCT of Delhi or
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 
for upgrading Trauma Centres of Hospitals managed in NCT 
of Delhi by the Government of Delhi. 
19. We, therefore, direct that a fine of Rs. 30 crore on each 
appellant should be imposed and if the said fine is paid within 
a period of three months, the sentence of the appellants be 
reduced to the sentence already undergone. We have noted 
the fact that as appellant no. I is fairly aged, it may not be 
fruitful to ask him to undergo rigorous imprisonment. On 
the ground of parity and on the peculiar facts of this case, 
so far as appellant no.2 may also not be constrained to 
undergo the sentence, if he also pays the same amount of 
fine. If the Qforestated amount is not paid within three months 
·from the date of order dated] 9th August, 2015, the appellants 
shall undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment, including 
the sentence already undergone." 
4. The review is sought mainly on the ground that once the 
Court expressed the view that sentence was required to be enhanced, 
the same could not be directed to be reduced on payment of fine. 
Reference has been made to Sections 63-65 of!PC which are as follows: 
"63. Amount of fine. - Where no sum is expressed to which a 
fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is 
liable is unlimited, 'but shall not be excessive. 
64. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine. Jn 
every case of an offence punishable with
imprisonment as 
well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, 
whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of 
an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with 
fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine. it 
shall be competent to the Court which sentences such 
offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment 
of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a 
certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any 
other imprisonment to which. he may have been sentenced 
or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a 
sentence. 
65. Limit to imprisonment for non-pay11ient of fine, when 
imprisonment and fine awardable.-The term for which the 
627 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
628 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 7] J, S.C.R. 
Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of 
payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of 
imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if 
the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine." 
5. It was submitted that the default sentence cannot exceed Y. 
·of the term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence. It was also 
submitted that undue sympathy in imposing inadequate sentence may 
lead to miscarriage of justice. There should be element of fear in the 
mind of offender for which adequate sentence was required to be 
imposed. It was also submitted that sentence prescribed under Section 
304-A !PC was required to be revisited by the law makers in light of 
observation of this Court. In support of these submissions, reference 
has been made to several judgments' to which detailed reference does 
not appear to be necessary as there is no dispute about the principle that 
adequate sentence as warranted in a fact situation has to be awarded by 
a Court. 
6. Opposing the above submissions learned counsel for Sushi I 
Ansal and Gopal Ansal submitted that there is no patent error which 
may justify invocation ofreview jurisdiction. The arguments now sought 
to be raised were before the Court when the order was passed by this 
Court. The review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 
Mere possibility of two views cannot be a ground for
review. Reference 
was also made to several decisions of this Court', where long delay in 
'Guru Basavaraj v. State ofKarnataka (2012) 8 SCC 734 
Pritam Chauhan v. State (Govt. ofNCT of Delhi) (2014) 9 SCC 637 
State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 
State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182 
State ofKarnataka v. Sharanappa BasanagoudaAregoudar (2002) 3 SCC 738 & 
(2002) sec (Cri) 704. 
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719 
State ofM.P. v. Surendru Singh (2015) 1 SCC 222 
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 
2 State ofM.P. v. Mehtab (2015) 5 SCC 197 
Manish Jalan v. State ofKarnataka (2008) 8 SCC 225 
V.K. Verma v. CBI (2014) 3 SCC 485 
Labh Singh. v. State ofHaryana (2012) 11 SCC 690 
Nand Lal v. State ofUttarakhand. (2010) 4 SCC 562 
Beena Philipose. V. State of Kerala (2006) 7 SCC 414 
Devi Ram v. State ofHaryana (2002) 10 SCC 76 
Beyas Mahto v. State ofBihar (2000) 9 SCC 509 
R.V. Lyngdoh v. State (Delhi) Spl. Estt. (1999) 9 SCC 645
·, 
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSH!L ANSAL AND ANOTHER [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
pendency of proceedings, age, health and other factors have been taken 
into account for awarding sentence lesser than the maximum prescribed, 
It is not necessary to refer to the said decisions also as it is well settled 
that the sentence has to be awarded in the light of nature of offence, 
prescribed sentence, over all fact situation, mitigating and aggravating 
circumstances, including age of the offender, his background, possibility 
ofretum to normal 1 ife and need of the society. 
7. It was submitted that since reliefcan be moulded in individual 
cases having regard to the fact situation, the sentence awarded in the 
present case is not in any manner illegal nor unjustified so as to be held 
629 
A 
B 
to suffering from a patent error. 
c 
8. I have given deep consideration to the rival submissions and 
perused the record as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned 
counsel for the parties. 
· 
9. It may first be clarified that the reference before Three Judge 
Bench on account of difference of opinion on question of sentence was 
not limited to selection ofone out of the two conflicting opinions but to 
determine the quantum of sentence in view of difference of opinion as 
the reference order quoted hereinabove clearly shows'. It may further 
be noted that it is not factually correct to assume that there was no 
difference of opinion for imposing at least one
year sentence. In para 
269 (ofSCC supra), Misra, J. observed-"Thus, the appeals bearing 
Nos.597-598 of 2010 preferred by the appellants/respondents Sushi/ 
Ansal and Gopal Ansal are dismissed except that the sentence 
imposed on Appellant] Sushi! Ansa/ is reduced to the period already 
undergone considering his advanced age." 
In para 263, it was 
observed that .. . "Hence, while the sentence of one year awarded in 
.Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2010 to Sushi/ Ansal is fit to be upheld, 
the sentence already undergone by him may be treated as sufficient 
in the said appeal as he has already served a major part of the 
sentence and in spite of dismissal of his appeal, he would at :;;~ 
most serve the balance three mor1ths' sentence further along with 
remission. 
In the order of Three Judge Bench reference to the above observations 
have been made in the part of order already quoted above. 
' (2014) 6 sec 173, pg 332, Para 270.4. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
630 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
I 0. As regards Section 65 IPC which puts a limit of imprisonment 
for default sentence upto Y. of the term of imprisonment, the grievance 
against higher default sentence, if any, can be only by the accused and 
not by the State. Moreover, it is not a case of higher default sentence 
being awarded but of giving option to pay higher for reduced sentence. 
There is, thus, no conflict with sentence prescribed by IPC as submitted 
by the review petitioners. There is also no merit in the contention that 
once the Court felt that higher sentence was required to be imposed, 
sentence iyss than one year cannot be awarded. Order of the Court has 
to be seen as a whole and cannot be split into different sentences'. The 
operative part of the order has already been quoted hereinabove which 
shows that the Court has tried to balance the interest of justice and 
while holding that sentence was required to be enhanced, it was added 
that in lieu of additional period of enhanced sentence, substantial amount 
of fine was required to be imposed and the fine was to be utilized for 
setting up of or upgrading the trauma centres of hospitals managed by 
the Government of Delhi. It was also noted that having regard to the 
advanced age of Sushi! Ansal (who was 74 years as per observations in 
Order dated 05.03.2014 and now 111ust be 77 years) and who had already 
undergone sentence of5-6 months and with remission of9 months out 
of
sentence of one year awarded by the High Court; further imprisonment 
was not necessary if he paid the imposed fine. Same sentence was 
applied to Gopal Ansal. Same principle was also followed for some 
other accused which has not been challenged. It is also necessary to 
mention that higher fine cannot be read as extra benefit to a rich person 
but has been imposed on account of capacity to pay. There is neither 
any illegality nor any impropriety warranting review of said order passed 
by this Court. 
11. For above reasons, there is no merit in the Review Petitions 
and the same are dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Review Pelitions disposed of. 
'Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. vs. Union oflndia(2010) 5 SCC 388, para 
31