SUSHIL ANSAL versus STATE THROUGH CBI

SUSHIL ANSAL versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Sentence for appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal is enhanced to the maximum period of two years under Section 304-A IPC, but in lieu of additional period of sentence, each must pay Rs. 30 crore fine within three months; if paid, jail sentence is reduced to period already undergone; on default, two years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Harsarup Panwar (A-15) must pay Rs.10 lakh fine for sentence to stand reduced to period already undergone; else one year RI. Fines are directed to be used for trauma care purpose in Delhi.

Parties
Appellant: Sushil Ansal; Appellant: Gopal Ansal; Appellant: Harsarup Panwar; Respondent: State through CBI; Appellant: Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Sentencing After Reference to Larger Bench
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; sentence modified; fines imposed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Section 304 a IPC, Section 337 IPC, Section 338 IPC, Section 36 IPC, Section 14 Cinematograph Act, 1952
Criminal Law Sentencing Section 304 a IPC Section 337 IPC Section 338 IPC Section 36 IPC Section 14 Cinematograph Act, 1952

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushil Ansal

Appellant

Gopal Ansal

Appellant

Harsarup Panwar

Appellant

State through CBI

Respondent

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Sentencing After Reference to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for conviction under Sections 304-A/337/338 read with Section 36 of IPC and Section 14 of Cinematograph Act, 1952 given the facts of the Uphaar cinema fire case?
  2. 2 Should the sentence be enhanced and/or substituted with a substantial fine for public purpose?

Ratio Decidendi

Sentence for appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal is enhanced to the maximum period of two years under Section 304-A IPC, but in lieu of additional period of sentence, each must pay Rs. 30 crore fine within three months; if paid, jail sentence is reduced to period already undergone; on default, two years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Harsarup Panwar (A-15) must pay Rs.10 lakh fine for sentence to stand reduced to period already undergone; else one year RI. Fines are directed to be used for trauma care purpose in Delhi.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; sentence modified; fines imposed.

Orders

  • Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal each to pay Rs. 30 crore fine within three months; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone if paid; on default, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment including time already served.
  • Fine to be paid by demand draft to Chief Secretary of Delhi Government for setting up or upgrading trauma centres.