The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to Gopal Ansal, Sushil Ansal and other accused on a revision petition by the Delhi Police challenging trial court's order reducing their sentence from seven years to eight months in the evidence tampering case related to Uphaar tragedy. .Single-judge Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also sought a response from the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) and asked all the respondents to file their replies in four weeks. The case will now be considered on April 13. .The State has challenged the July 2022 order the District and Sessions Judge which ordered the release of the convicts holding that quantum of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court was not only harsh and onerous but also disproportionate to the offence committed.Ansals were awarded a seven-year jail term in November 2021 by the Magistrate court. .The High Court is already seized of the revision petition by AVUT against the orders of the District and Sessions judge. Ansal brothers have also filed pleas challenging their conviction in the case. .As Justice Bhambhani was informed about the pendency of these cases, he ordered that all of them will now be heard together. The judge also remarked that considering the advanced age of the convicts in the case, that matter has to be heard in reasonable time. .The case arose from a devastating fire that took place at Delhi's Uphaar Cinema on June 13, 1997, that took 59 lives and left several people injured. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after completing its investigation, had submitted a chargesheet against Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and other accused.An inquiry was ordered by a court in 2003 after some documents related to the Uphaar tragedy case went missing from the court record room. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the court employee was dismissed.When the trial was at a sufficiently advanced stage, the public prosecutor noticed that several important documents that had been seized by the Investigating Officer and filed along with the chargesheet, were either missing from records or had been tampered with.