Delhi court

Forced to Pull Story on Indian Firm’s Alleged Global Hacking Operation, Reuters to Fight Court Order

Additional district judge of Delhi’s North West district court Rakesh Kumar Singh found the article to be prima facie “indicative of defamation”.

New Delhi: Following a Delhi court’s preliminary order, the news agency Reuters has temporarily removed a special investigation which claimed that an Indian information technology company, Appin, stole data from prominent persons around the globe, including politicians, military officials and business executives.

Reuters, however, said that it “stands by its reporting and plans to appeal the decision”.

An additional district judge of Delhi’s North West district court found the article to be prima facie “indicative of defamation”, according to a copy of the order seen by The Wire.

The special report was published on November 16, 2023 and was titled, ‘How an Indian Startup Hacked the World’.

In an Editor’s note published on December 5, Reuters said it had temporarily removed the article to comply with a preliminary court order issued on December 4.

In his order, additional district judge Rakesh Kumar Singh noted that he was prima facie satisfied that the special report was “indicative of defamation”, and that the website should not retain such an article in the public domain.

The court, however, clarified that this was only a prima facie opinion. The “defendants shall have sufficient opportunity to express their views through reply, contest in the main suit etc. and the final decision shall be taken subsequently”.

The court order was issued amid a pending lawsuit brought against Reuters in November 2022 by the lawyers of Appin Association of Training Centre, accusing the news agency of a defamatory campaign. “As set forth in its court filings, Reuters disputes those claims,” the agency stated.

Rajat Khare’s US representative, the law firm Clare Locke, rejected any association between its client and the cyber-mercenary business. It told Reuters that Khare “has never operated or supported, and certainly did not create, any illegal ‘hack for hire’ industry in India or anywhere else.”

Clare Locke said, “Mr. Khare has dedicated much of his career to the fields of information technology security – that is, cyber-defense and the prevention of illicit hacking.”

Khare’s lawyers said media articles tying him to hacking were “false” or “fundamentally flawed”.

Clare Locke, as quoted in the report, said under Khare’s tenure, Appin specialised in training thousands of students in cybersecurity, robotics and artificial intelligence, “never in illicit hacking”.

The lawyers said Khare left Appin in part because rogue actors were operating under the company’s brand and he wanted “to avoid the appearance of associations with people who were misusing the Appin name”.

The Delhi district judge, while ordering Reuters to take down the article, said the “balance of convenience” lies in directing the withdrawal of the content.

“I am of the opinion that even if the defendants for some period do not retain the article on the website and on that account they suffer any market value, [they] can be ultimately compensated by money from the plaintiff but the retention of such material on the website if allowed, the same may have devastating effect on the general students population of India (sic),” the court said.

In a filing, Reuters raised preliminary objections to the suit, including questioning the locus standi of the plaintiff.

This article was edited on December 18 at 7:25 pm.

Keeping Devices of Journalists Seized for Long Periods Impinges on Press Freedom: Delhi Court

The observation was made by additional sessions judge Pawan Singh Rajawat while upholding a previous order asking the Delhi police to release devices seized from The Wire’s employees.

New Delhi: Dismissing a challenge by the Delhi Police to the direction of a lower court that it return electronic devices seized from The Wire‘s journalists last year as not maintainable in law, additional sessions judge Pawan Singh Rajawat on Wednesday observed that the continuous seizure impinges on the freedom of the press.

In September, chief metropolitan magistrate Siddhartha Malik of the Tis Hazari courts ruled that there were no reasonable grounds for the police to hold on to the devices since the investigating officer had possession of them for a very long time and the court had been told that the Forensic Science Lab had already taken mirror images for further investigation. The police’s argument that the devices might be needed again for subsequent investigation is “speculative in nature based on the presumption of coming to light some new fact at a later stage, which may or may not happen”, the magistrate had said, adding that devices cannot be kept indefinitely by the police.

The Wire was represented in court by Ashwath Sitaraman, Prasanna S. and Archit Krishna. The devices were seized by the police in October 2022 following a complaint against The Wire by a Bharatiya Janata Party leader.

The magistrate’s order was appealed by the Delhi Police before the additional sessions court. After hearing the arguments, judge Rajawat said that the press is the fourth pillar of democracy and “if it is not allowed to function and operate independently, it would cause serious injury to the foundations of our democracy”.

He added:

“…continuous seizure of electronic devices of the respondents, is not only causing undue hardship to them, but impinges upon their fundamental right of Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) as well as Freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as admittedly the respondents are working for news portal The Wire which is engaged in disseminating news and information and the electronic devices were being used for their work.”

Judge Rajawat noted that the chief metropolitan magistrate’s order not only safeguarded the interest of The Wire‘s employees but also ensured that they are duty bound to keep the devices safe from tampering and if they notice any anomaly with the devices, they should immediately notify the investigating officer.

The judge noted that Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) enables the court to decide the custody of property pending investigation and cited the Supreme Court’s order in Basava Kom Dyamangouda Patil (1977) to say that the police should not indefinitely keep property in its custody. The same verdict said that the court needs to determine if the property seized by the police is required in the future course of the trial.

Section 451 of the CrPC, judge Rajawat noted, gives the court wide discretion to make orders for proper custody of the property pending trial. “In the process the Court may incidentally be guided by the consideration as to who is the person prima facie entitled to the possession of the case property and hand over its possession to him with a view to safeguard his interest but that may not be the sole consideration for the Court while entrusting custody of the case property or property used in the commission of an offence etc. to any of the rival claimants,” the order says.

Court Grants Bail to Outgoing WFI Chief Brij Bhushan Singh in Sexual Harassment Case

During the hearing, the court noted that the Delhi Police is neither supporting nor denying the bail application.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday, July 20 granted regular bail to outgoing Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and Bharatiya Janata Party MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a case of sexual harassment of women wrestlers.

During the hearing, the court noted that the Delhi Police is neither supporting nor denying the bail application, LiveLaw reported.

“We are not out rightly opposing his bail… neither are we supporting it. We leave it to the wisdom of the Court,” the news outlet reported the Delhi Police as saying.

On July 18, the court granted him and Vinod Tomar, the suspended WFI assistant secretary, a two-day interim bail till Thursday.

Tomar has also been granted regular bail in the case.

Olympic-level wrestlers were forced to hold a protest against him, staging a dharna at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar from January 18.

Bajrang Punia, Sakshi Malik, and Asian Games champion Vinesh Phogat, were among the protesters demanding Singh’s arrest.

Singh has consistently rejected all allegations of misconduct.

The Delhi Police had filed a charge-sheet against the six-time MP on June 15 under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Tomar was charged with offences under IPC sections 109 (abetment of any offence, if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment), 354, 354A and 506 (criminal intimidation).

The court had taken cognizance of the police’s charge-sheet on July 7 and summoned Singh and Tomar to appear before the court.

Apart from the case registered by six women wrestlers, another first information report was registered against Singh by a minor grappler, which was registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. She was among the seven female wrestlers who had accused Singh of sexual harassment.

It had been the primary concern of protesting wrestlers that a man booked under POCSO, which calls for immediate action, had not been arrested.

The allegations against Singh include inappropriate touching, groping, stalking and intimidation by him at different times and places over a decade. Other allegations against him include dictatorial functioning and financial irregularities in the management of WFI.

The minor’s complaint, however, was later changed. Olympic medallist Sakshi Malik had said the minor had changed her statement because “her family was threatened”, the Telegraph reported.

‘Delhi Police Presented Same Old Facts as Fresh Evidence’: What the Court Said in Jamia Case

‘This filing of a slew of chargesheets must cease, else this juggernaut reflects something beyond mere prosecution, and would have the effect of trampling the rights of accused persons,’ the court order said.

New Delhi: While discharging 11 Jamia Millia Islamia University students accused of rioting in 2019, after more than three years, a Delhi court on Saturday, February 4, slammed the police authorities for filing multiple chargesheets with “nothing new to offer”, adding that it “trampled the rights of the accused”.

The discharged student activists Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar and eight others were arrested in connection with the violence which broke out near Jamia in December 2019.

Additional sessions judge Arul Varma said it has been most unusual of the police to file not just one chargesheet but three supplementary chargesheets, with really nothing new to offer.

“This filing of a slew of chargesheets must cease, else this juggernaut reflects something beyond mere prosecution, and would have the effect of trampling the rights of accused persons,” the court order said.

The investigative agency presented the same old facts as fresh evidence, says court order. by The Wire on Scribd

“It is of utmost significance to note that the prosecution did not end with filing of a chargesheet and two supplementary chargesheets. It is with dismay that this court notes that a third supplementary chargesheet was filed, after considerable arguments on charge[s] were heard, and a day before the conclusion of the final arguments qua the aspect of charge,” the court order read.

“And it was filed when considerable arguments were already addressed, and when the accused persons had filed their written submissions,” the order said.

It highlighted that the “third supplementary chargesheet begins with a patently wrong statement”.

While making these observations, the court also referred to Surender @ Tannu v State NCT of Delhi wherein the aspect of filing a supplementary chargesheet has been delved at length.

“Only precondition [to reopening the case in which a chargesheet has been submitted and cognisance taken] is that the reopening must be on the basis of fresh material, which were not available earlier and also that permission should be taken from court,” the order said.

The court, therefore, in its order, said that “the second chargesheet was submitted only on reconsideration of evidence only collected at the time of earlier submission of the chargesheet.”

In this view, the second chargesheet cannot be considered in consonance with the provision of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (A magistrate cannot suo moto direct further investigation).

The order further said that a perusal of the third supplementary chargesheet reveals that the very same photographs have been filed, which are already part of the record. The same statements of those witnesses which were already recorded were again presented in the new chargesheet.

Interestingly, the court order clearly said that “even in the third chargesheet, the witnesses merely aver that the accused were part of the protests, and some were “speaking loudly” and “arguing with the police”. No overt act has been attributed to them even in the present chargesheet.”

The court, therefore, concluded: “The investigative agency has not adduced fresh evidence, rather [it] has sought to present the same old facts in the garb of further ‘investigation’ by filing another supplementary chargesheet.”

Court Reserves Order on Jacqueline Fernandez’s Bail, Asks ED Why It Has Not Arrested Actor Yet

“Why haven’t you (ED) arrested Jacqueline yet during the investigation despite issuing an LOC? Other accused are in jail. Why adopt a pick-and-choose policy,” the court asked the probe agency.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday rapped the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for adopting a pick-and-choose policy, and asked why the agency had not arrested actor Jacqueline Fernandez despite issuing a lookout circular against her in a Rs 200 crore money-laundering case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekar.

Special judge Shailendra Malik, who had earlier granted Fernandez interim bail, reserved his order for Friday on the bail plea. Arguments from the lawyers appearing for Fernandez as well as the ED were heard on Thursday.

On the ED’s submission that Fernandez can escape the country easily as she is not short of money, the court questioned why the actor was not arrested so far.

The agency told the court that it has issued a lookout circular (LOC) on airports to stop the actor from leaving the country.

“Why haven’t you (ED) arrested Jacqueline yet during the investigation despite issuing an LOC? Other accused are in jail. Why adopt a pick-and-choose policy,” the court asked the probe agency.

The accused has sought bail, saying there was no need for her custody since the investigation is already complete and the chargesheet has been filed.

The court had on September 26 granted interim bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000.

The court had on August 31 taken cognizance of a supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED and asked Fernandez to appear before the court.

Fernandez, who was summoned by the ED several times in connection with the investigation, has been named as an accused for the first time in the supplementary chargesheet.

The ED’s earlier chargesheet and a supplementary chargesheet did not mention her as an accused. The documents, however, mentioned the details of the statements recorded by Fernandez and fellow actor Nora Fatehi.

NSE Phone Tapping: Delhi Court Dismisses Chitra Ramkrishna’s Bail Plea

The court had recently refused bail to former Mumbai police commissioner Sanjay Pandey in the case.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on August 29 dismissed the bail application of former managing director and chief executive officer of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Chitra Ramkrishna in a money laundering case related to the alleged illegal phone tapping and snooping of NSE employees.

Special judge Sunena Sharma denied the relief, saying the stage was not set to allow the bail.

During the hearing, the ED had opposed the bail plea, saying the investigation was ongoing in the matter and she was directly or indirectly indulging in the crime.

The ED’s special public prosecutor N.K. Matta had told the court that from 2009 to 2017, former NSE CEO Ravi Narain, Ramkrishna, executive vice president Ravi Varanasi and head (premises) Mahesh Haldipur and others conspired to cheat NSE and its employees and for the said purpose iSEC Services Pvt Ltd was engaged for illegal interception of phone calls of employees of NSE in the guise of Periodic Study of Cyber vulnerabilities of NSE.

The top officials of NSE issued agreement/work orders in the guise of Periodic Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities of NSE in favour of iSEC Services Pvt. Ltd., represented by former Mumbai Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey, and illegally intercepted the phone calls of its employees by installing an illegal machine without seeking requisite permission from the competent authority as mandated under the law, the ED said.

Also Read: CBI Probes NSE Co-Location Scam, Seeks Help of Journalist Who Broke Story

Further, no consent of the employees of NSE was taken in this matter, it added.

Transcripts of these calls were provided by iSEC and received by the officials of NSE at top level in breach of confidentiality and privacy of employees of NSE and thereby, caused wrongful gain of Rs 4.54 crore to iSEC as payment for this task and corresponding wrongful loss to NSE, the agency said.

The court had recently refused bail to former Mumbai police commissioner Pandey in the case.

The ED further averred that the amount of Rs 4.54 crore represented the proceeds of crime in this case which were acquired by iSEC Services Pvt. Ltd. from NSE of India and which were projected as fees for non existent ‘Periodic Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities of NSE.

The investigating officer submitted that the Enforcement Directorate had recorded statements of various persons including Ramkrishna and had collected various documents including the “Monitoring Reports for Call Logs”, approval notes of NSE bearing approval granted by Ramkrishna for the study which prove the allegations contained in the CBI FIR, based on which the ED filed the current case.

It further submitted that Ramkrishna was in possession of material evidence and information relating to the offence of money laundering, which was subject matter of investigation in the instant case and custodial interrogation of Ramkrishna is necessary to establish money trail of proceeds of crime and to gather crucial evidence.

(PTI)

2020 Delhi Riots: Court Discharges Six Accused for Offence of Attempt to Murder

After the order, the court transferred the case back to a magisterial court concerned, saying that the case was not exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

New Delhi: A Delhi court has discharged six accused from the offence of attempt to murder in a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

However, the court said they will face trial for the offence of rioting.

After the order, the court transferred the case back to a magisterial court concerned, saying that the case was not exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

In the way, the investigation has been conducted, accused persons cannot be charged under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, though it could be argued that all accused persons participated in the riots, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat said.

Also read: ‘In Custody for Two Years,’ Delhi Riots Accused Moves for Bail, HC Seeks Police Status Report

Besides the six, another person was also booked in the case but only for the offence of rioting.

The court was hearing a case where seven accused were booked for allegedly being a part of the riotous mob on February 25, 2020, near Maujpur Babarpur metro station.

The court noted that the entire focus of the investigation was to show the involvement of the six accused as part of the riotous mob, which had caused a gunshot injury to a person.

However, curiously, Sajid (the injured person), during the investigation, was made an accused. One of the primary reasons was that since he had suffered a gunshot injury during the riots, he can be held to be a part of the riotous mob. By this logic, every injured person in a riots case can be made an accused, the court said.

Also read: After Delhi Violence Victim Complains of Inadequate Compensation, CIC Suggests Reassessing Loss

The court also said that although the gunshot injury must have been caused by a pistol (katta) fired by one person, six persons were charged with the offence of an attempt to murder.

Noting that the main witness in the case was also named as an accused, the court asked how will Sajid appear as a witness in a case in which he himself is an accused?

Hence, the way the investigation has been done and the charge sheet prepared, I am of the view that Section 307 IPC is not made out and thus, this case is not exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the judge said.

Earlier Welcome police station registered a first information report against seven accused Sajid, Zahid, Kajim, Mohd. Abbas, Fazil, Soheb and Jawed.

The offence of murder attempt was not levelled against Sajid.

(PTI)

Sukesh Chandrashekar Case: Supplementary Chargesheet Names Jacqueline Fernandez

The conman is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case.

New Delhi: A Delhi court will consider on August 31 a supplementary charge sheet filed Wednesday by the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs 200 crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, naming Bollywood actor Jacqueline Fernandez as an accused.

Fernandez, who was summoned by ED several times in the matter for investigation, has been named as an accused in the chargesheet for the first time in the case.

ED’s earlier chargesheet and one supplementary chargesheet did not mention her name as an accused.

The documents, however, had mentioned the detail of the statement recorded by Fernandez and Nora Fatehi in the matter.

Additional sessions judge Praveen Singh posted the matter for August 31 on the issue of taking cognisance of the supplementary charge sheet in the case.

According to the ED, Fernandez and Fatehi were examined and stated that they got luxury cars and other expensive gifts from Chandrashekar.

ED stated that during the investigation, statements of Fernandez were recorded on August 30 and October 20, 2021, where she said that she received gifts from Chandrashekar.

Statements of Fatehi were recorded on September 13 and October 14, 2021, wherein she stated that she had received gifts from Chandrashekar and his wife and actress Leena Paulose.

(PTI)

‘Court’s Lenience Towards Ansal Brothers Is a Travesty – I Say This Not Just as a Grieving Mother’

In reducing the sentence of the culprits of the Uphaar fire, the court has let down victims and emboldened law breakers, writes the mother of two of the victims of the 1997 tragedy.

Dear readers, if you choose to read this article, please consider it an opinion piece written by a responsible citizen of India – one who cares deeply for the integrity of the nation and for the safety and well being of its citizens. Please do not treat this as an article authored by a grieving mother, driven to a state of mental instability by the tragic loss of her children.

Nor do I ask for any pity or compassion for my loss, which could well drive anyone to the brink and further.

I write this with all my faculties intact, having respected the rule of law, and after having spent the last quarter of a century stoically seeking justice as a responsible citizen of the country should do.

I am sharing my thoughts with readers today for the same reason that has driven me to set aside my unimaginable loss and grief and dedicate my life to seeking justice from the judicial system in India. I want the public to know what their rights are, what laws and rules govern Indian society and how the rich, influential and corrupt are manipulating laws, lawmakers and law-keepers and making a mockery of them.

On July 19, 2022, I stood in court before District and Sessions Judge who had, only the other day on July 18, 2022, upheld the conviction of Gopal and Sushil Ansal and others in the case related to tampering of evidence in the Uphaar fire case. A day later he permitted them to walk out of jail on grounds of old age even as he admitted they were guilty of all charges made against them.

As if this travesty was not enough, he stated in open court while pronouncing the sentence, that if you (i.e. the victims including me and my husband, Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, as well as all members of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy) have suffered, so have the Ansals.

His statement continues to haunt me and I am appalled that a man given the honor of being the District Judge could equate a mother’s pain and suffering to that of Ansals even after holding them guilty for tampering with evidence.

The Ansal brothers. Photo: Twitter

The Ansals have also been held guilty for the death of 59 people in the main Uphaar case by no less than the Supreme Court of India.

And yet, the District Judge, while equating my suffering with that of the convicted Ansals did not hesitate to insult the memory of my beloved children, and the pain and suffering I have gone through for the past 25 years without my children.

The Ansals, on the other hand, have been leading normal lives, attending to their businesses, vacationing abroad and socialising. If they have been convicted, it is due solely to their own misdeeds.

Equally appalling is the order on sentencing wherein the judge has stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s order on sentence is punitive and retributive in nature so as to teach a lesson to Sushil and Gopal Ansal. The case in question is tampering with judicial records and the Ansals have been convicted under sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), read with 120B (criminal conspiracy), of the Indian Penal Code. Section 409 of the IPC is punished with imprisonment for life. The crime being serious, it is tantamount to interference in the administration of justice. Hence, the CMM in his wisdom has rightly awarded a seven-year sentence as per law and had no personal agenda to teach a lesson to the Ansals.

The order further states that while the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy do not want the culprits to go scot-free and enjoy any rights and liberties in the remainder of their lives, this whole criminal litigation cannot be converted by the prosecution into an inhuman and vindictive approach to the convicts.

This finding is unwarranted and adds further insult to injury.

The tampering had hampered our legal and constitutional rights to a fair trial, which in turn led to agony and mental trauma. AVUT’s endeavour was to get the perpetrators of the crime punished as per law, not by a new set of laws made on demand by us.

We are law abiding and asked only for punishment under the prescribed section of the penal code. It is the law which curtails the rights and liberties of the convicts and not the victims.

It is pertinent to mention that it is the responsibility of the prosecuting agency to get justice for the victims of crime. In most of the cases, the prosecuting agency is accused of botching up the investigation, resulting in acquittal. But in this case, prosecution is being accused of having an inhuman and vindictive approach even though the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in conviction.

Tampering with evidence is a crime against the institution of justice and the judge should not have taken such a lenient approach while sentencing the convicts. The Supreme Court while cancelling the bail of the Ansals in the year 2008 had said during proceedings, “Tampering with court records is worse than murder and dacoity.”

By reducing the sentence from seven years to period undergone i.e. eight months and 12 days, taking into consideration the age and medical condition of the Ansals, the court has shown undue sympathy to convicts who do not respect the law.

The same medical conditions of the Ansals were pointed out to the high court while seeking suspension of sentence in the month of February 2022 and the same was not considered by the court. The order of the District Judge has clearly sent a wrong message to society. The whole purpose of sentencing is to act as a deterrent. This order will only embolden rich and powerful accused persons to tamper with court records.

The judge also failed to take into account antecedents of the Ansals while sentencing. The Ansals are facing numerous criminal cases, a list of which was given to the court. It was brought to the notice of the court that the CMM had taken cognisance on February 27, 2021, of the fact that Sushil Ansal had given a false declaration to the passport authorities to renew his passport. He has been summoned under sections 420, 177, 181, 192 and 197 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act.

This is not the first time that the Uphaar victims have been let down by the courts.

File photo of a prayer meeting of family members of the Uphaar cinema fire victims. Credit: AVUT

Earlier in August 2015, in the main Uphaar case, the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence of the Ansals to period undergone and allowed them to walk free after paying fine of Rs 60 crore to the Delhi government towards the construction of a trauma centre.

I can only urge readers, law-makers, policy makers, and even law-breakers and criminal-supporters to pay heed to the words of several legal luminaries whose opinions and statements cannot be brushed aside as mine often are, by saying that I am maddened by my grief, or that I am a vendetta-seeking grieving mother.

Just the other day it was CJI Ramana who is reported to have said, “Denial of justice would lead to anarchy”. Surely, he is neither maddened by grief nor blind to the rights of all citizens, including victims and convicts.

Do not let anarchy overthrow the course of justice, not for my sake or the sake of my deceased children, but for your own good and for the greater good of our country.

Neelam Krishnamoorthy is president of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy.

Uphaar Cinema Fire: Court Orders Release of Gopal, Sushil Ansal in Evidence Tampering Case

The court, however, upheld the fine of Rs 2.25 crore each imposed on the Ansals.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday, July 19 ordered the release of real estate tycoons Sushil and Gopal Ansal against the jail term already undergone by them since November 8, 2021, in a case of tampering with evidence related to the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire, which had claimed 59 lives.

District judge Dharmesh Sharma said that the family members of the fire victims may not want the culprits to go scot-free and enjoy any rights and liberties in the remainder of their lives but the criminal litigation cannot be converted by the prosecution into an inhuman and vindictive approach to the appellants.

A magisterial court on November 8, 2021 awarded seven-year jail terms to the real estate barons, who have been in prison since then.

While modifying the magisterial court’s order on sentence, the district judge on Tuesday also ordered the release of former court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and Ansal’s then employee P.P. Batra against their already undergone jail term since November 8.

The court, however, upheld the fine of Rs 2.25 crore each imposed on Sushil and Gopal Ansal and Rs three lakh each on the other two by the magisterial court earlier.

“We empathise with you (Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorti). Many lives were lost, which can never be compensated. But you must understand that penal policy is not about retribution. We have to consider their (Ansals) age. You have suffered, but they have also suffered,” the judge said.

Also read: Anatomy of a Tragedy: Remembering the Victims of the Uphaar Cinema Fire

He said that the quantum of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the magisterial court was not only harsh and onerous but also disproportionate to the offence committed.

“The whole tone and tenor of the impugned order on sentence dated 08.11.2021 would show that the Ld. Trial Court passed the order on sentence, which by all parameters was punitive and retributive in nature so as to teach a lesson to the appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal,” the judge said.

It said that the case was not all about Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal, howsoever notorious they might be, but more importantly it was about appellants court staff Dinesh Chandra Sharma and other convict P.P. Batra.

“Considering the long years of service in the justice delivery system and experience, to my mind the worst culprit, in this case, was appellant Sharma, who fell prey to the criminal conspiracy hatched by Ansals to cause the disappearance of a vital piece of evidence,” the judge said.

The judge said he understood that the Uphaar fire tragedy was one where several lives were lost and many were injured and that must have caused deep anguish, pain, and perennial misery to the affected family members and that it was difficult to comprehend that family members would be able to forget such incident and forgive the offenders.

“It strikes to human notions and understanding that the surviving family members, who have now joined together by forming an Association viz. ‘AVUT’, does not want the culprits to go scot-free and enjoy any rights and liberties in the remainder of their lives but this whole criminal litigation cannot be converted by the prosecution into an inhuman and vindictive approach to the present appellants,” the judge said.

The court said that the trial in the main case related to fire was delayed hardly by six months but then Ansals were convicted and have already served the punishment provided therein in the main case, thus, instant matter can not be taken be considered to be an extension of the punishment awarded in the main Uphaar fire tragedy case.

The court directed that the fine paid by the convicts be paid as compensation to the AVUT, after defraying the costs of litigation payable to the state.

Before storming out of the courtroom, Krishnamoorti told the judge that the order was injustice and that she had lost faith in the judiciary.

“This is complete injustice. We cannot have faith in the judiciary if the accused is rich and powerful… I made a mistake by coming to court. The system is corrupt,” Krishnamoorti told the judge and left the courtroom.

While upholding the conviction of the Ansal brothers, the court had, however, on Monday acquitted one co-accused, Anup Singh, in the case and granted him bail.

The case is related to tampering with the evidence in the main fire tragedy case in which the Ansals were convicted and sentenced to a two-year jail term by the Supreme Court.

The apex court, however, released them taking into account the prison time they had done on the condition that they pay a Rs 30 crore fine each, to be used for building a trauma centre in the national capital.

As per the chargesheet, the documents tampered with included a police memo giving details of recoveries immediately after the incident, Delhi Fire Service records pertaining to repair of transformer installed inside Uphaar, minutes of Managing Director’s meetings, and four cheques.

Out of the six sets of documents, a cheque of Rs 50 lakh, issued by Sushil Ansal to self, and minutes of the MD’s meetings, proved beyond doubt that the two brothers were handling the day-to-day affairs of the theatre at the relevant time, the charge sheet had said.

The tampering was detected for the first time on July 20, 2002, and a departmental enquiry was initiated against Dinesh Chand Sharma. He was suspended and terminated from services on June 25, 2004.

The fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of the Hindi film ‘Border’ on June 13, 1997, claiming 59 lives.

(PTI)