HARSARUP PANWARversusSTATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 584
- Decided
- 19 August 2015
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ANIL R DAVE
Holding
The Court upheld the one‑year rigorous imprisonment but allowed its reduction if the accused pays Rs 10 lakh for trauma‑centre facilities.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the sentencing of A‑15 Harsarup Panwar, the cinema owner held responsible for the 1997 Uphaar fire that killed 59 people. The Court affirmed his conviction under IPC sections 304A, 337, 338 and 36. It imposed one year of rigorous imprisonment but, considering his advanced age and ill health, conditioned a reduction of the sentence on payment of Rs 10 lakh within three months, to be used for establishing or upgrading trauma centres. The Court reasoned that the payment serves a public‑welfare objective and does not constitute a penalty. The appeal was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a court may conditionally remit a custodial sentence on the payment of a sum for public‑welfare purposes.
- Whether such a conditional remission is consistent with the principles of sentencing and the statutory provisions of the IPC and CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 36
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304A, s. 337, s. 338, s. 36
Subjects
Judgment
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 771
HARSARUP PANWAR A
v.
STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI
(Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2010)
B
AUGUST 19, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ]
Sentence/Sentencing - Uphaar cinema case - c
Negligence of owners of cinema, Divisional Fire Officer-A
15 and others resulting ih death of 59 people - Conviction of
A 15 for offences punishable uls. 304A read with s. 36 and
ss. 337 and 338 rw s. 36 /PC -As regards sentencing of the
accused, direction issued that accused to be sentenced to o
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year - However, in
view of the advanced age of the accused, the diseases from
which he is suffering and other peculiar facts and
circumstances, on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs within three
months, sentence to be reduced to the period already E
undergone - Said amount would be used on welfare
schemes.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 599 of2010 F
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal
No. 4 of2008
· Ram Jethmalani, Gopal Jain, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs., G
Vikas Agarwal, Madhukar, Vinay Arora, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, Sanjay Jain, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, Anirudh Anand,
Somnath Gaur, Ajay Awasthi, Chirag Madan, Ms. P. R. Mala,
Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa, Sanjay Narayan, Ms. H
771
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R.
A ShabeenaAnjuna,Aseem Mehrotra,Abhijat P. Medh, Advs.,
with them for the Appellant.
K.T.S. Tulsl, Harish N. Salve, Sr.Advs., Jayant K. Mehta,
A. Faraz Khan, Ms. Ambika Mehta, Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal,
B Ms. Mandarini Singh, Ms. Aparajita, T.A. Khan, (For 8. Krishna
Prasad), Advs., with them for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
c
For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, we direct that
A-15 Harsarup Panwar shall stand sentenced to tJndergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, having regard
to advanced age and the diseases from which he is suffering,
D and other peculiar facts and circumstances, if he pays Rs.10
lakhs, then the sentence will stand reduced to the period
already undergone. If he fails to pay the aforestated amount
within three months from today, he shall undergo the sentence
of one year, excluding the term which he has already
E undergone.
The aforestated amount shall be given by way of a
demand draft to the Chief Secretary of De!hi Government for
setting up a new trauma centre orfor upgrading the existing
F trauma centres of hospitals managed by the Government of
NCT of Delhi.
Nidhi Jain Appeal disposed of with directions.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.