The Delhi High Court in the case Sushil Ansal v. State observed and has issued a notice on the plea moved by real estate baron Sushil Ansal against his conviction and sentencing in the evidence tampering case connected to the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy.
The bench comprising of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed and has admitted Ansal’s revision petition for hearing and called for the trial court records in soft copy.
However, the court was appraised that Ansal has already deposited the fine imposed by the trial court.
The bench ordered that the revisionist has already deposited the fine amount and the same is also disbursed and the revision is admitted for hearing. Let the record of trial court be called in soft copy.
Further, the court also issued bailable warrant against one of the convicts PP Batra — who wasn’t present and did not have any lawyer represent him before the court, in the petition moved by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) challenging early release of Ansal brothers and other persons.
It stated that the Ansals were sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the trial court, in July, the session court reduced it to the already undergone period, meaning they were freed in the case after spending a little over eight months in jail.
The present petition moved through Advocates Gautam Khazanchi and Kumar Vaibhaw, Ansal observed and has argued that the Principal Sessions and District Judge had not provided independent reasons while confirming his conviction after the order passed by the CMM.
However, the CMM Pankaj Sharma had convicted Ansals and others under Sections 201 (tampering of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code.
Further, the plea argues that the Principal Sessions and District Judge failed to appreciate that there was no evidence, direct or indirect, inferring Ansal’s involvement in the matter.
The plea states that the Ld. Appellate Court did not discharge its burden judicially and did not rule out in the present case, all alternative hypothesis. Thus, it is submitted in the present case the chain of circumstances is neither complete nor it is leading to the inference of guilt qua the Petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the present case is a classic example of motivated investigation where the Petitioner has been roped merely for extraneous reasons.
Apart from challenging the conviction and the order on sentence, the petition also seeks directions on AVUT to give security or undertaking of Rs. 3 crores qua the fine deposited by Ansal till the disposal of the petition.
