Sumit Singhal vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 8414 Raj

                                        (1 of 5)                   [CRLMA-59/2022]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               D.B. Review Application No.59/2022
                                       in
                D.B. Criminal Reference No.2/2020

Sumit Singhal S/o Sh. Rajkumar Singhal, Aged About 29 Years,
99, Kalali Mohalla, Chhotisadri, Dist. Pratapgarh At Presently
Section-12, D-Block, Kudi Bhagtasni, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
       Jodhpur.
2.     The Ragistrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Law Secretary, Dept. Of Law
       And Justice, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Sceretriate, Jaipur.
4.     Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Law And
       Justice, New Delhi 110001
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        : Mr. Sumit Singhal, petitioner in person

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, P.P.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                    Order

Order pronounced on : 29/06/2022

Order Reserved on : 26/05/2022


BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.

The petitioner laying a self-proclamation of being a

learned counsel having intellectual wisdom has filed the instant

application under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952

seeking review of the judgment dated 03.12.2021 rendered by

this court in D.B. Criminal Reference No.2/2020.

Scanned memorandum of the review application, which is

supported by the affidavit of the petitioner Advocate, is being

annexed with this order as living proof of the fact that the

intellectual level of the petitioner is purely pedestrian and even a

student of elementary class would be expected to have better

knowledge of grammar and language. The application is riddled with

grammatical and spelling errors, which cannot be expected from an

Advocate desirous of appearing and pleading cases of litigants in the

Apex Court of the State, i.e. the High court. We have highlighted a

few of these mistakes in the memorandum of the review application.

Looking to the nature of these blunders, we express serious

reservation on the self-proclamation made by the petitioner in the

application, where he brands himself to be a learned person.

The petitioner has broadly alleged in the review petition

that the notice of the reference ought to have been published in the

newspapers; Bar Associations all over the State should have been

invited to address the court on the important legal issues; judicial

members of sub-ordinate State judiciary should also have been

intimated so that they could submit their views; the arguments

advanced by the individual members of the bar were not noted in

the judgment and their presence was marked collectively.

The petitioner appears to be peeved by non-inclusion of

his name in the array of Advocates, whose presence is noted in the

judgment dated 03.12.2021 and also the alleged non-

consideration of the written arguments submitted by the members

of the Bar including the petitioner himself.

We may, at the outset, state that these hyper- ventilated

claims of the petitioner are misplaced. The reference was forwarded

to this court by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali under Section 395

of the CrPC. As per Section 395 (1) CrPC, which reads as below, a

reference involving validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of

any provision contained therein can be referred to the High Court by

a court subordinate to it and the referral court would then be

required to answer the reference.

"395. Reference to High Court.

(1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court. Explanation.- In

this section," Regulation" means any Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897 ), or in the General Clauses Act of a State."

There is no mandate in Section 395 CrPC that the views of the

members of the Bar should unexceptionally be invited before

answering the reference. Such course of action is adopted just in

order to seek independent views from the members of the bar for

the assistance of the court. Notifying the members of the Bar in a

reference of this nature is purely the discretion of the court to be

exercised as a matter of prudence. Needless to say that the

reference was forwarded to this court by the Sessions Judge, Pali

and there was no party to the reference and thus, as per Rule 325 of

the Rajasthan High Court Rules, there was no requirement to hear

the matter in the open court and the reference could even have

been considered and decided by the court by laying its own

procedure. The members of the Bar were invited just to have their

views and for seeking their assistance. Thus, we are of the firm view

that the petitioner has no locus to dictate the terms of the procedure

and the manner in which the reference should have been heard and

decided.

The petitioner has cast serious aspersions on the Court at

grounds Nos.(H) and (J) of the application supra, which are

reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-

"H) That looking to aforesaid ground, impugned judgment passed in the reference is looking merely passed inside the Chamber not in open court, therefore, same ought to be rectified now.

J) That in the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that judgment was reserved on 30/07/2021 and pronounced on 03/12/2021, therefore, there is 5 months gap between reserving a judgment and delivering it."

These aspersions amount to browbeating and lowering

the dignity of the court and are thoroughly contemnous. The

petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of

Rajasthan is required to act as an officer of the court, but it seems

that he has scant respect for the court and total disregard for

administration of justice.

The review application is frivolous and mischievous on the

face of the record. Therefore, the same is dismissed with a cost of

Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the cost within a period of

30 days from today. The cost upon being furnished shall be

appropriated in the funds of the Rajasthan State Legal Services

Authority. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the cost as above, he

shall be precluded from filing Vakalatnama and from appearing and

arguing cases on behalf of litigants in any court within the State of

Rajasthan.

A copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief

Justice for circulation.

     (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J                                  (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Promod/-



















Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)