By IANS,
New Delhi : The families of those killed in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy Friday approached the Delhi High Court seeking direction to the government to grant saction for prosecution of former top cop Amod Kanth for allowing extra seats in the hall where 59 of the audience died in a blaze.
Notice was issued to Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Amod Kanth through Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw seeking the government’s response by Nov 24.
The Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) approached the court saying the government had declined their plea for granting sanction to prosecute Kanth for allegedly allowing an extra row of seats in Uphaar theatre which blocked the exit.
A total of 59 people, mostly from the upper-floor balcony class, died in the blaze while over 100 others were injured during the maiden show of blockbuster film ”Border” on June 13, 1997.
AVUT told the high court that it had approached the home ministry to seek sanction for Kanth`s prosecution after the trial court had summoned him seeking his stand on its plea for his prosecution.
It said the home ministry had responded to its plea on June 23 this year and said, “The matter has been duly examined by the ministry. As the matter is sub-judice, it is not possible to intervene at this stage.”
It had moved the high court challenging the ministry’s denial of its permission to prosecute Kanth.
Meanwhile, the trial court is slated to have the next hearing on the association’s petition for Kanth’s prosecution on Monday.
The court had said there was sufficient material to prosecute Kanth under section 304A (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 also observed that there was prima-facie evidence to prosecute Kanth under the Cinematograph 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.
The high court, however, had reduced the jail term of the Ansals from two to one year under section 304 A (causing death by rash and negligent acts) of IPC.