grossly rash and negligent manner in issuing No Objection Certificates without carrying out a proper inspection

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
167. As regards the conviction of Divisional Fire Officer, H. S. Panwar (A15) assailed in Criminal
Appeal No.599/2010, the trial Court has on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial found
that the said accused had acted in a grossly rash and negligent manner in issuing No Objection
Certificates without carrying out a proper inspection of the cinema hall from the fire safety angle,
resulting in issue of temporary permits in favour of the theatre which directly resulted in the death
of 59 persons in the incident in question. The trial Court observed:
Accused H.S. Panwar acted with gross negligence by recommending No Objection
certificate without fulfilling requirements of law and without carrying out inspection
of the cinema hall building from fire safety point of view, resulting in the issuance of
temporary permits and on the basis of the same exhibition of films, which action
resulted into the death of the patrons inside the cinema hall on the day of the
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 71
incident. The accused committed breach of duty by omitting to point out the fire
hazards and deficiencies in fire fighting measures in the cinema building, which act
amounts to culpable negligence on his part. The act of accused can also be described
as culpable rashness since being an officer from the office of Chief Fire Officer, he
was conscious that the intended consequences would surely ensure. The accused by,
omitting to do his lawful duties committed gross negligence and rashness which was
the direct and proximate cause of the death of 59 persons. Accordingly, the accused
H.S. Panwar is held guilty for the offence under Section 304A IPC read with section
36 IPC. The accused is also held guilty for the injury to the patrons in the cinema hall
for the offence under section 337 and 338 IPC. (emphasis supplied)
168. The above finding was affirmed by the High Court in the following words with a reduction in
his sentence:
 Concerning accused H.S. Panwar, the negligent and careless inspection carried
out by him has been held to be a significant and direct cause of the accident, which
took away lives of innocent people, and grievously injured several others. His vigil
could have prevented the fire clearance certificate. If he had displayed the same zeal
that he did in November, 1996, when the inspection report did not yield a no
objection? (sic) There would have been a greater scrutiny of the fire safety norms.
Instead, he certified that fire safety norms had been complied with, whereas in
actuality they were not. No doubt, he has served the Delhi Fire Service for a long
time; according to the trial court judgment, he was 68 years when the impugned
judgment was pronounced. He is also a recipient of commendations. On a conspectus
of all these circumstances, the court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be
served if the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and
Rs.5000/- under section 304-A. The default sentence in his case is also modified to
simple imprisonment for two months. The conviction by the trial court is therefore
maintained and to the above extent.
169. Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant H.S. Panwar made a two-fold submission in
support of his appeal. Firstly he argued that according to the standard practice prevalent in the Fire
Department the appellant H.S. Panwar then Divisional Fire Officer was required to give a report in
terms of the proforma prescribed for the purpose. This was according to the learned counsel evident
from the deposition of Shri G.D. Verma (PW 37) the then Chief Fire Officer. He urged that even
earlier inspections had been made on the basis of the very same proforma, which was correctly filled
up by the appellant furnishing the requisite information demanded in the proforma.
170. Secondly it was contended by Mr. Mehrotra that the Victims Association had claimed
compensation from the management of the theatre as well as MCD Delhi Fire Service, in which case
the High Court had exonerated Delhi Fire Service. That finding had attained finality as the same was
not challenged by the Association. This, argued the learned counsel, implied that the Fire Service or
its officers were not at fault for the occurrence in question, a circumstance which could and ought to
be kept in view.
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 72
171. There is, in our opinion, no merit in either one of the submissions made by Mr. Mehrotra.
Clearance by the Fire Department was, it is common ground, an essential pre-requisite for the grant
of a license, its renewal or the issue of a temporary permit for exhibition of the films in any cinema
hall. This clearance could be granted only if the officers concerned were fully satisfied after an
inspection of the cinema premises that the same was indeed safe for use as a place for exhibition of
cinematographs. Anyone discharging that important function had to be extremely vigilant as, any
neglect on his part could allow an unsafe premises being used resulting in serious consequences as
in the present case. Far from being vigilant and careful about the inspection, H.S. Panwar grossly
neglected the duty cast upon him, resulting in the issue of temporary permits, which contributed to
the causa causans of the incident. It is in the circumstances no defence for the appellant-H.S.
Panwar to plead that he was asked to report only according to the proforma furnished to him. As a
senior and experienced officer in the Fire Service Department, he ought to have known the purpose
of his inspection and the care he was required to take in the interest of the safety of hundreds, if not
thousands of cine- goers who throng to such public places for entertainment. In as much as he failed
to do so, and issued a certificate which compromised the safety requirements and endangered
human lives resulting directly in the loss of a large number of them, he has been rightly found guilty.
172. So also the second limb of Mr. Mehrotras submission is in our opinion without any substance.
The question whether the appellant H.S. Panwar was grossly negligent resulting in the loss of
valuable human lives has to be determined on the basis of the evidence on record in the present case
and not on the basis of findings which the High Court may have held in a summary proceedings for
payment of compensation to the victims and their families recorded under Article 226 of the
constitution. The evidence in the case at hand has been appraised by the two Courts below and
found to establish the charge of negligence against the appellant. There is, in our opinion, no
compelling reason for us to take a different view in the matter especially when we do not see any
miscarriage of justice or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court and the High Court