Supreme Court of India

SUSHIL ANSALversusSTATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: 2014 INSC 168
Decided: 19 August 2015
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: ANIL R DAVEKURIAN JOSEPHADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Holding

The Court upheld the conviction and imposed two years' rigorous imprisonment on each accused, but allowed remission of the sentence upon payment of Rs 30 crore each within three months for trauma‑centre funding.

Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of cinema owners Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal for negligence that caused the death of 59 persons in the Uphaar cinema fire, finding them guilty under IPC sections 304A, 337, 338 read with 36. The Court affirmed a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment for each accused. However, invoking the advanced age of the accused and other circumstances, the Court conditioned remission of the sentence on the payment of Rs 30 crore each within three months, the amount to be used for establishing or upgrading trauma centres in Delhi. If the payment is not made, the original two‑year sentence will be enforced, excluding time already served. The order also directed that the payment be made by demand draft to the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under IPC sections 304A, 337, 338, read with 36 for negligence causing death is legally sustainable.
Whether a two‑year rigorous imprisonment is an appropriate sentence for the offences.
Whether the Court may condition remission of a criminal sentence on the payment of a monetary sum for public welfare.
Whether such a conditional remission violates principles of equality and the rule of law.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304A, s. 337, s. 338, s. 36

Subjects

negligenceIPC 304Acinema firesentencingconditional remissionpublic welfaretrauma centrerigorous imprisonment

Judgment

                  [2015] 12 S.C.R. 769


                     SUSHIL ANSAL                              A
                            v.
                  STATE THROUGH CBI
            (Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2010)
                                                               B
                    AUGUST 19, 2015
        [ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
             ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ]
      Sentence/Sentencing - Uphaar cinema case - c
Negligence ofA 1 and A 2-owners of cinema resulting in death
of 59 people - Conviction of accused for offences punishable
uls. 304A read withs. 36 and ss. 337 and 338 rw s. 36 IPC-
As regards sentencing of the accused, direction issued that
accused to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment D
for two years - However, in view of the advanced age of the
accused and other peculiar facts and circumstances, on
payment of Rs. 30 crores each by the accused within three
months, sentence to be reduced to the period already
undergone - Said amount. would be used on welfare E
schemes.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 597 of 2010
                                                               F
     From the Judgment and Order dr1ted 19.12.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal
No. 794 of 2007
                           WITH
     Crl. A. Nos. 598 of 2010                                  G

     Ram Jethmalani, Gopal Jain, Salman Khurshid, Sr.Advs ..
Vikas Agarwal, Madhukar, Vinay Arora, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, Sanjay Jain, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, AnirudhAnand,
                            769                                H
770           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A Somnath Gaur, Ajay Awasthi, Chirag Madan, Ms. P. R. Mala,
  Mohit D. Ram, Ms. M~nisha Handa, Sanjay Narayan, Ms.
  Shabeena Anjuna, Aseem Mehrotra, Abhijat P. Medh, Advs.,
  with them for the Appellant.

B          K. T. S. Tulsi, Harish N. Salve, Sr.Advs., Jayant K. Mehta,
      A. Faraz Khan, Ms. Ambika Mehta, Ms. PriyankaAggarwal,
      Ms. Mandarini Singh, Ms.Aparajita, T.A. Khan, (For B. Krishna
      Prasad),Advs., with them forthe Respondent.

c           The following Order of the Court were delivered

                                ORDER

        For the reasons to be recorded hereafter, we direct that
  A-1 SushilAnsal andA-2 GopalAnsal shall stand sentenced
D to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However,
  having regard to advanced age of the accused and other
  peculiar facts and circumstances, if they pay Rs.30 crores each,
  i.e. Rs.60 crores, then the sentence will stand reduced to the
  period already undergone. If they fail to pay the aforestated
E amount within a period of three months from today, they shall
  undergo the sentence of two years each, excluding the term
  which they have already undergone.

        The aforestated amount shall be given by way of a
F demand draft to the Chief Secretary of Delhi Government for
  setting up a new trauma centre or for upgrading the existing
  trauma centres of hospitals managed by the Government of
  NCT of Delhi.

G     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.

Try "negligence"Sign in to search