Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRL.M.P.     NO.     7477      OF     2012   

IN

S.L.P(Crl.)     No.2430      of     2012   

Sunil Kumar                                   …Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana                                                    …Respondent                      

O     R     D     E     R      

Dr.     B.S.     CHAUHAN,     J   

1. Delay condoned.

2.. Once it had been commented that anti-social elements i.e.  

FERA violators, bride burners and whole horde of reactionaries have  

found their safe haven in the Supreme Court and such a comment  

became subject matter of contempt of this Court and had to be dealt  

with by this Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR  

1988 SC 1208.

3. This Court in Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu &  

Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 140 quoted the observations made by the

Page 2

High Court in that case expressing its views that common man  

must feel assured to get justice and observed as under:

“Let not the mighty and the rich think that courts  are their paradise and in the legal arena they are  the dominant players.”

4. These judgments make one thing crystal clear that  

criminals do not hesitate  approaching courts even by abusing the  

process of the court and some times succeed also.  The instant  

case belongs to the same category.  Petitioner feels that merely  

because he is a black-marketeer and succeeded in exploiting the  

helplessness of the poor people of the Society and is capable of  

engaging lawyers, he has a right to use, abuse and misuse the  

process of the court and can approach any court any time without  

any hesitation and without observing any required procedure  

prescribed by law.   

5. An FIR dated 15.9.1998 was lodged against the petitioner  

and one other person under Section 7 of Essential Commodities  

Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act 1955) as they were found in  

possession of 1370 litres of blue kerosene and indulging in  

unauthorised sale thereof in violation of the provisions of Section  

7 of the Act, 1955. After completing investigation chargesheet  

was filed and trial commenced.  

2

Page 3

6. The trial court vide judgment and order dated  

27.10.1999/2.11.1999 found them guilty of the said offence and  

awarded sentence of imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine  

of Rs.2,000/- each.  Against the aforesaid order, the appeal of the  

petitioner stood dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and  

order dated 30.7.2010.  Petitioner preferred an application dated  

25.7.2011 before the High Court for modifying the aforesaid  

judgment and order dated 30.7.2010 giving him the benefit of the  

provisions of Section 360  of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

(hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and/or  Section 4 of the Probation of  

Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act 1958).  The said  

application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.9.2011.

7. It may be pertinent to mention that against the judgment  

and order dated 30.7.2010, the petitioner had filed SLP (Crl.)  

no.1469 of 2011 on 13.10.2011 which was dismissed by this  

Court vide order dated 27.1.2012.  Subsequent thereto this  

special leave petition has been filed on 29.2.2012 challenging the  

order dated 19.9.2011.  No explanation has been furnished as  

why the present petition could not be filed during the pendency  

of the earlier SLP or both the orders could not be challenged  

simultaneously as the order impugned herein had been passed  

3

Page 4

much prior to the filing of the first SLP on 13.10.2011, and  

petitioner surrendered to serve out the sentence only on  

13.1.2012.  

8. The High Court dealt with various propositions of law  

while dealing with the averments raised on his behalf including  

the application of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. which  

puts a complete embargo  on the criminal court to reconsider any  

case after delivery of the judgment as the court becomes functus  

officio.   

9.      This Court in a recent judgment in State of Punjab v.  

Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 364  

dealt with the issue considering a very large number of earlier  

judgments of this Court including Vishnu Agarwal v. State of  

U.P. & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1232 and came to the conclusion:

“Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised  to the effect that the criminal justice delivery  system does not clothe the court to add or delete  any words, except to correct the clerical or  arithmetical error as specifically been provided  under the statute itself after pronouncement of  the judgment as the Judge becomes functus  officio.  Any mistake or glaring omission is left to  be corrected only by the appropriate forum in  accordance with law.”

4

Page 5

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a very heavy  

reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kunhayammed & Ors.  

v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein this court  

has held that in case the special leave petition is dismissed by this  

Court in limine, party aggrieved may file a review petition before  

the High Court. The said judgment has been explained in various  

subsequent judgments observing that in case the review petition  

has been filed before the High Court prior to the date the special  

leave petition is dismissed by this Court, the same may be  

entertained. However, a party cannot file a review petition before  

the High Court after approaching the Supreme Court as it would  

amount to abuse of process of the court. (See: Meghmala & Ors.  

v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383).  

The  ratio of the aforesaid case has no application in the  

instant case as that was a matter dealing with civil cases.  

11. Further reliance has been placed on behalf of the  

petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Chhanni v. State of  

U.P.,  (2006) 5 SCC 396, wherein the court itself held as under:  

“9.  The High Court is justified in its view that there  is no provision for modification of the judgment.”  

Further direction has been issued by this court to re-

consider the case exercising its power under Article 142 of the  

5

Page 6

Constitution of India. Thus, the aforesaid judgment  does not lay  

down the law of universal application, nor it deals with  the  

provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C.  Thus, in view of the above, the  

said judgment has also no application in the instant case.  

 12. The High Court in the impugned judgment  came to the  

right conclusion that court could not entertain the petition having  

become functus officio.  

13.       Be that as it may, petitioner being the black-marketeer  

presumed that he had a right to dictate terms to the court and get  

desired results, thus, approached this Court again and sought the  

relief prayed before  the High Court.  Petitioner has lost in four  

courts earlier. In this fact-situation whether there should be any  

restrain on the petitioner or he should be permitted to abuse the  

judicial process as he likes.    

14. This Court in Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K.  

Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2687 observed as under:  

“No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on   the Court time and public money in order to get   his  affairs  settled  in  the  manner  as  he  wishes.   Easy  access to justice should not be misused as a   licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.”   

6

Page 7

15. In  Sabia Khan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,  AIR  

1999 SC 2284, this Court held that filing totally misconceived  

petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and waste  

of courts’ time.  Such litigant  is  not required to be dealt  with  

lightly.

16. Similarly, in Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai & Anr.,  

(2003) 1 SCC 488, this Court held that wherever the Court comes  

to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused,  

the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and  

refuse the party from pursuing the remedy in law.    

17. Even otherwise, the issue as to whether benefit of the Act  

1958 or Section 360 Cr.P.C. can be granted to the petitioner is no  

more res integra.  In Issar Das v. The State of Punjab, AIR  

1972 SC 1295, this Court dealt with the case under the provisions  

of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act observing that  

adulteration of food is a menace to public health and the statute  

had been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evils  

and for ensuring purity in the articles of food.  The Legislature  

thought it fit to prescribe minimum sentence of imprisonment.  

Therefore, the court should not lightly resort to the provisions of  

7

Page 8

the Act 1958 in case of an accused found guilty of offences under  

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.   

18. In M/s. Precious Oil Corporation & Ors. v. State of  

Assam, AIR 2009 SC 1566, this Court dealt with the issue of  

application of the Act 1958 in case of offences punishable under  

Section 7 of the Act, 1955.  The Court did not grant the benefit of  

the said provisions to the appellant therein placing reliance upon  

the judgment of this Court in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo  

Ramchandra Dange & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 228 wherein this  

Court has held as under:

“The kindly application of the probation  principle is negatived by the imperatives of  social defence and the improbabilities of moral  proselytisation. No chances can be taken by  society with a man whose anti-social operations,  disguised as a respectable trade, imperil  numerous innocents. He is a security risk.  Secondly, these economic offences committed by  white-collar criminals are unlikely to be  dissuaded by the gentle probationary process.  Neither casual provocation nor motive against  particular persons but planned profit-making  from numbers of consumers furnishes the  incentive - not easily humanised by the  therapeutic probationary measure.”    

19. Thus, in view of the above, the relief sought by the  

petitioner cannot be granted.  Petition is misconceived and  

8

Page 9

untenable. The petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly  

dismissed with the cost of Rs.20,000/- which the petitioner is  

directed to deposit within a period of four weeks with the  

Supreme Court Legal Services Authority and file proof thereof  

before the Registrar of this Court, failing which the matter be  

placed before the Court for appropriate direction for recovery.

        …………………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

         ………………………………….J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

New Delhi, March 27, 2012

9