The Ansal Brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, asking for the suspension of their seven-year sentence for evidence tampering in the 1997 Uphaar Cinema fire disaster (Sushil Ansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi).
The order was issued by Justice Subramonium Prasad, a single judge, in response to the Ansal brothers' appeal of a Sessions Court order that had refused to suspend their sentence.
The Court, on the other hand, granted co-accused Anoop Singh Karayat's request for the same relief.
The Ansal brothers and Karayat had petitioned the High Court to overturn a Sessions Court decision that refused to commute their seven-year sentence for tampering with evidence in the 1997 Uphaar Cinema fire catastrophe case.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Ansals before the HC, argued that no judicial system considers a primary conviction to be final and that there is a need to take a broader view because the allegation was about a continuing conspiracy of evidence tampering, but there was no direct evidence.
The Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) as well as the State, however, vigorously opposed the request.
The case stemmed from a terrible fire at the Uphaar Cinema on June 13, 1997, which claimed the lives of 59 people and injured countless others.
The Ansal brothers were convicted to seven years in prison and a fine of 2.25 crore by a Delhi court in November 2021 for tampering with evidence in the Uphaar Cinema fire catastrophe case.
They then appealed the Magistrate's conviction order to the Sessions Court.
Despite declining to stay the sentence, the Court set February 23, 2022, as the date for hearing appeals against the Magistrate's conviction ruling.
Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil remarked in his order that the judgement and conviction order looked to be without prima facie illegality or impropriety.
“Thus, appreciating and analyzing the totality of facts and circumstances, the findings thereon of the learned trial court as discussed above, in my considered opinion, the submissions advanced and the grounds raised by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants/convicts does not inspire the confidence of this court,” the Judge said.
Judge Antil commented on the seriousness of the offence, saying that it appeared to be the result of a deliberate plan to obstruct justice.
“The polluters of the judicial firmament are required to be shown no leniency to maintain the sublimity of the institution, and recourse faith in general public in the administration of justice; - any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and needs to be viewed seriously,” the Court had said.
The Court went on to say that because the trial court had already found the defendant guilty, the presumption of innocence did not apply.