Delhi Court orders framing of charges against Uphaar tragedy convict Sushil Ansal in passport case

A Delhi court has ordered framing of charges against the Uphaar fire tragedy convict Sushil Ansal in a separate case for allegedly concealing criminal cases and submitting false declarations to renew a passportAnsal was booked by the crime branch of Delhi Police in 2019 and he was accused of furnishing false information as he failed to declare his conviction in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedyChief Judicial Magistrate Shriya Agrawal of Patiala House Courts in a November 28 order held that prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against Ansal for offences under Sections 420 cheating 177 furnishing false information to a public servant 181 making false statement on oath IPC and Section 12 offenses related to passports of the Passports Act relisting the matter for formal framing of charges on January 13 2026The court said Ansal has consciously concealed the details of criminal cases pending against him as also the order of conviction in the sworn declaration submitted with his 2013 Tatkaal passport application The concealment the judge noted was used to induce under misrepresentation the Regional Passport Office into issuing the PassportThe court said the accused not only withheld information on convictions and pending FIRs but consciously did not give proper details of his previous address to evade detection of true criminal history adding that the alleged false statements were made on two separate occasions both in 2013 and in 2018The court further elaborated in the order dated November 28 and said It is a given that subsequent acknowledgment of unintentional mistake by the Accused cannot erode the previous culpability as the Accused had remained in possession and used the valuable document throughout based on misleading declarations in breach of the statutory requirementsRejecting the defence claim that prosecution was barred from filing a case in the absence of a written complaint the court held the condition stood satisfied because the case was initiated pursuant to Delhi High Court directionsReferring to a Supreme Court precedent the order said a High Court directive is on a par with direction of an administrative superior public servant for the purposes of cognisanceThe defence claim of double jeopardy was also rejected as the court elaborated that the penalty imposed by the Passport Authority and the criminal proceeding in court are separate processes and therefore cannot be considered punishment for the same offenceThe Passport Authority imposing penalty cannot and would not substitute for formal criminal proceedings under the statute imposing criminal sanction which can only be considered in judicial proceedings but for which a case of double jeopardy would not ariseLastly the court declined to proceed on offences regarding sections 192 and 197 IPCReacting to the order Neelam Krishnamoorthy chairperson of the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy AVUT called the development not an isolated incident and said it marked Ansals third criminal caseEach time he is let off or given concessions on the grounds of old ageBut the truth is he was already 64 when he tampered with judicial records and 74 when he renewed his passport from the authorities by giving false information and without seeking the permission of the court How long can one individual continue to commit offence after offence and still evade meaningful accountability The justice system must send a clear message repeated wrongdoing cannot become a lifelong escape act said KrishnamoorthyHe has already been held guilty in the Uphaar fire tragedy case where 59 innocent lives were lost and has also been convicted in the evidencetampering case an act that was nothing short of an insult to the courts and the justice system she saidThe Uphaar Cinema case pertains to the fire that had broken out at the film hall during the screening of the Hindi film Border on June 13 1997 claiming 59 livesAVUT has previously been allowed to assist the prosecution in this case in an order dated August 4The court had held that the association at whose instance the proceedings were initiated was entitled to assist the prosecution and no prejudice would be caused to the accusedThe apex court in September 2015 held the Ansal brothers Gopal and Sushil Ansal guilty of causing death due to negligence in that caseApart from the one year sentence the two brothers had to undergo the top court fined them with Rs 60 crore to be used for building a trauma centre in the national capitalThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever