KRISHAN LAL MALHOTRA Vs. GOVT OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioners under section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, who are the managerial staff of the Uphaar Cinema, are in custody in connection with case F.I.R. No. 432/97 P.S. Hauz Khas. The case relates to an abominable tragedy at Uphaar Cinema in which several prsons including women and children lost their lives while watching the matinee show of the film "Border" on Jme 13, 1997. FIR u/s 304/436/427/337/338/285/287 I.P.C. was lodged on the same day at about 8.45 P.M. by one Sudhir Kumar, a guard on duty at Uphaar Cinema. It appears that after the registration of the case and during investigation, statements of several surviving viewers, who were present inside the cinema at the time of the unfortunate tragedy, were recorded. Besides, the statements of persons who were present outside the cinema at the time of the incident were also recorded. The material on record also includes the report of the enquiry which was instituted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi on June 14,1997.

(2.) What emerges from it makes a very sad reading. A transformer of 1000 KVA capacity belonging to the Delhi Vidyut Board (for short 'D.V.B.') is installed in the enclosed car parking area of Uphaar Cinema. On June 13,1997 at about 7 A.M. a fire broke out in the transformer which was attended to by the D.V.B. employees but the quality of work performed by them in rectifying the defect is being questioned. At about 5 P.M. on the same day heavy sparking took place in the D.V.B. transformer which was followed by a loud explosion. It was noticed that oil started flowing from the D.V.B. transformer due to the explosion which resulted in an outbreak of fire. A few cars including the car of the petitioner No.1 were taken out from the parking lot, but most of the cars could not be taken out with the result that several cars parked there caught fire. Due to the burning of tyres, car seats, petrol, transformer oil, cable insulations, etc., toxic smoke was generated which travelled to the auditorium. The condition became worse as the private transformer belonging to the cinema was switched off. At this critical juncture there was no light in the auditorium. It was in total darkness. According to the statements of several viewers recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there was no arrangement of emergency lights in the hall. The viewers could not be warned to leave the hall in time since the public address system was not functioning. Besides, the staff ran away without opening the doors of the auditorium. It has also come in their statements that the staff rendered no assistance to the viewers in securing their evacuation from the auditorium. Several balcony viewers died due to asphyxiation. In a nut shell the main allegations against the peti- toners are that (1) public address system of the cinema was networking and as a result thereof the viewers were not warned in time to escape from the auditorium, (2) the exit and the gangway lights were not functioning, (3) there was no emergency light, (4) the staff of the auditorium did not render any worthwhile assistance to the viewers in making . good their escape to safety, (5) the parking was meant to accommodate 15 cars but as against that 33 cars were parked, some of them near the D.V.B. transformer, (6) fire extinguishers in the auditorium were either missing or were empty, and (7) tank meant as part of the fire fighting equipment was empty. Mr. Lekhi. learned senior counsel for the respondent, took pains to point out the above short comings with reference to the material on record. Apart from highlighting these specific accusations against the petitioners, he contended that there has been wholesale flouting of norms. In this regard he submitted that (i) in the balcony adequate number of gangways and exits were not provided affecting ingress and egress, (ii) more seats were created at the cost of gangways and exits, (iii) commercial areas were created including a panwari shop thereby reducing the circulation area in the building, (iv) space meant for car parking outside the cinema was occupied by stairs in front of main entrance and other entrances, (v) sprinkler meant for fire fighting was not connected to the water tank, (vi) there was inadequate space in the gallery outside the balcony. As per the learned counsel, all this constitutes violation of various provisions of the statute law, rules and bye-laws. On the other hand, Mr. Mathur, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, vehemently refuted the allegations. However, after elaborate arguments learned counsel on both the sides agreed that the accusations from (i) to (vi) above do not concern the petitioners and need not be taken into consideration for the purposes of this application..

(3.) Mr. Mathur, in regard to accusations (1) to (7) above contended that petitioners have not committed any of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. He submitted that adequate precautions were taken by the management for the safety of the patrons. He urged that the incident occurred as a result of an accident for which the petitioners were not at fault. According to him, the explosion took place in the transformer belonging to the D.V.B. and the petitioners did not have any access to the transformer room which is kept locked by the D.V.B. He submitted that it is the D.V.B. which is wholly and solely concerned with the upkeep and maintenance of the same. It was contended that the fire safety equipment in the cinema hall was in a working condition and the water tank meant for extinguishing fire did not lack water. Learned counsel urged that sections 304 and 436 I.P.C. were not attracted taking the accusations on their face value. He also submitted that the staff of the cinema hall did everything possible to evacuate the persons who were trapped in the auditorium. He asserted that all the doors of the auditorium were thrown open at the time of the explosion. Learned counsel placed on record various photographs of the auditorium in support of his contentions.