High Court Not Bound To Invite Bar's Views While Deciding Criminal Reference U/S 395 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

The court clarified that such a course of action is adopted just in order to seek independent views from the members of the bar for the assistance of the court.

As per Section 395 (1) CrPC, 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.

A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, while dismissing the application with a cost of Rs. 50,000, observed,

"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."

Essentially, a criminal reference was forwarded to the High Court by the Sessions Judge, Pali under Section 395 of the CrPC and subsequently, the judgment was rendered by the division bench of the High Court on 3.12.2021. Now, in the present matter, the petitioner Advocate has filed the instant application under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 seeking review of the said judgment.

The petitioner has broadly alleged that the notice of the reference ought to have been published in the newspapers. He also alleged that the views of Bar Associations all over the State as well as judicial members of subordinate State judiciary should have been invited to address the court on the important legal issues. He added that the arguments advanced by the individual members of the bar were not noted in the judgment and their presence was marked collectively.

Also Read: Application Cast Serious Aspersions On Court, Riddled With Language Errors: Rajasthan High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Advocate

The court observed that the petitioner appears to be peeved by non-inclusion of his name in the array of Advocates, whose presence was noted in the said judgment and also the alleged non-consideration of the written arguments submitted by the members of the Bar including the petitioner himself.

The court opined that these hyperventilated claims of the petitioner are misplaced. The court said,

"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. "

In this regard, the court also observed 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 court dismissed the review application with a cost of Rs.50,000/- as it being frivolous and mischievous on the face of the record. The court ordered the petitioner to deposit the cost within a period of 30 days from the date of order in the funds of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. In case of default, the petitioner Advocate shall be precluded from filing Vakalatnama and from appearing and arguing cases on behalf of litigants in any court within the State of Rajasthan, added the court.

In addition to this, the court ordered that a copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for circulation.

The petitioner appeared in person while PP R.R. Chhaparwal appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

Click Here To Read/Download Order