Judge to go through files before framing charges against Kanth

“Part arguments on charge heard. Put up for further arguments on November 17,” the ACMM said.

Kanth’s counsel,meanwhile,said in a statement that his plea for quashing of summons and stay of proceedings in lower court will come for hearing in the Delhi High Court on August 27.

Fifty nine people had been asphyxiated to death and over 100 others were injured in ill-fated Uphaar cinema hall on June 13,1997 during the maiden screening of Hindi blockbuster ‘Border’.

A case was registered against Kanth on the order of the court on a plea by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT),which had accused former senior police officer of allowing extra seats in the theatre in his capacity as DCP (Licencing) with the knowledge that such a decision would be disastrous in an emergency like fire.

Arguing for framing of charges against Kanth,AVUT counsel K T S Tulsi said on the basis of the documents on record,a prima facie case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of Indian Penal Code is made out against former IPS officer.

Tulsi,referring to an affidavit submitted by Kanth before the Delhi High Court,said Kanth had the ‘knowledge’ that installation of additional seats in the balcony of Uphaar cinema could lead to loss of life in an emergency situation.

AVUT had opposed the clean chit given to the former police officer,contending that he should be prosecuted for serious offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of the IPC entailing maximum sentence of life imprisonment instead of section 304 (A) which stipulates lighter punishment of only up to two years jail term for causing death due to negligence.

AVUT had also alleged that the CBI was trying to protect its former officer by giving an opinion that there was no negligence on his part.

The CBI,while denying the allegation,had maintained there was no evidence to charge Kanth and had added that at best the retired police officer could be charged with a lesser offence under section 304 (A) of IPC.

A lower court had in August 2010 rejected the CBI’s report,whih had absolved Kanth of all criminal culpability in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy.

The court had said there was sufficient material to prosecute Kanth under section 304 A (causing death by rash and negligent act),337 (causing hurt by an act which endangers human life) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by an act which endangers human life) of IPC.

The court had also said there was prima-facie evidence to prosecute Kanth under the Cinematography Act.

The alleged role of Kanth had come under the scanner when a trial court,while awarding varying jail terms to 12 accused,including theatre owners Sushil and Gopal Ansal in the fire case,had asked CBI to probe his alleged “acts of commission and omission” in allowing the extra seats.