SUMIT SINGHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 dtd. 3/12/2021 rendered by this court in D.B. Criminal Reference No. 2/2020.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.