SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                         [2012] 5 S.C.R. 184


A                           SUNIL KUMAR
                                   v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA
                     (Crl.M.P. No. 7477 of 2012)
                                  IN
B                    SLP (Crl.) No. 2430 of 2012

                          MARCH 27, 2012

     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,
                          JJ.]
c
        Administration of Justice:

          Abuse of process of the court - Petitioner and another
    person convicted and sentenced uls. 7 of the 1955 Act for
    having possession of large quantity of blue kerosene and
0
    indulging in unauthorized sale - Appeal by petitioner
    dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 30. 7.2010 -
    Application by the petitioner for modifying the order of the High
    Court, giving him benefit of the provisions of s. 360 Cr.P.C.
E   and/ors. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, dismissed
    by order dated 19. 9. 2011 - SLP against the order dated
    30. 7.2010 passed by High Court, dismissed - Subsequently,
    instant SLP filed challenging the order dated 19.9.,2011 -
    Held: High Court n'ghtly concluded vide impugned order dated
    19. 9. 2011 that court could not entertain the petition having
F   become functus officio - Petitioner being a 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 had
    lost in four courts earlier - No explanation was furnished as
G   to why the instant petition could not be filed during the
    pendency of the earlier SLP or both the orders could not be
    challenged simultaneously - Thus, the relief sought by the
    petitioner cannot be granted - Petition is misconceived and
    untenable - Petition being devoid of any men't, is dismissed
H                                  184
       SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                    185


with the cost of Rs.20,0001- to be deposited by the petitioner   A
with the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within the
stipulated period - Essential Commodities Act, 1955

     P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1208:
1988 ( 3 ) SCR 547; Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.       8
(2011) 11 SCC 140: 2010 (11 ) SCR 871; State of Punjab v.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc. AIR 2012 SC 364;
Vishnu Agarwal v. State of UP. & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1232;
Dr. Buddhi Kofa Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996
SC 2687: 1996 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 574; Sabia Khan & Ors. v.          C
State of UP. & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2284; Abdul Rahman v.
Prasony Bai & Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 488: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR
260; lssar Das v. The State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 1295:
1972 (3) SCR 312; Mis. Precious Oil Corporation & Ors. v.
State of Assam AIR 2009 SC 1566:2009 (1) SCR 762;
Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange & Ors. AIR         D
1974 SC 228: 1974 ( 2) SCR 154 - referred to.

     Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr. (2000) 6
SCC 359: 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538; Meghmala & Ors. v.
G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383: 2010 (10)            E
SCR 47; Chhanni v. State of UP. (2006) 5 SCC 396: 2006
(3) Suppl. SCR 305 - distinguished.

                     Case Law Reference:
    1988 (3) SCR 547            Referred to        Para 2        F
    2010 (11) SCR 871           Referred to        Para 3
    AIR 2012 SC 364             Referred to        Para 9
    AIR 2012 SC 1232            Referred to        Para 9
                                                                 G
    2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 Distinguished          Para 10
    2010 (10) SCR 47            Distinguished      Para 10
    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 305 Distinguished          Para 11
                                                                 H
    186        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 574 Referred to              Para 14
          AIR 1999 SC 2284             Referred to         Para 15
          2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 260 Referred to              Para 16
          1972 (3) SCR 312             Referred to         Para 17
B
          2009 (1) SCR 762             Referred to         Para 18

          1974 (2) SCR 154             Referred to         Para 18

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL) No.
C 2430 of 2012.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 19.9.2011 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No. 39067
    of 2011 in CRA No. 1127-SB/1999.
D
          Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Petitioner

          The order of the Court was delivered

                               ORDER
E
          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
F   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.,
G (2011) 11 SCC 140 quoted the observations made by the 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
H         players."
        SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                     187
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     4. These judgments make one thing crystal clear that          A
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      B
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
                                                                   c
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         D
investigation chargesheet was filed and trial commenced.

     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          E
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        F
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.
                                                                   G
    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     H
    188        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A 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 much prior to the filing of the first SLP on
B 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
C 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.
D 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
E
          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
F         mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by
          the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

        10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a very heavy
  reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kunhayammed & Ors.
G v. State of Kera/a & 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
H case the review petition has been filed before the High Court
        SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                        189
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
prior to the date the special leave petition is dismissed by this     A
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   sec   383).                                           B

     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       C
UP., (2006) 5  sec   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-           D
consider the case exercising its power under Article 142 of the
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.        E

      12. The High Court in the impugned judgment came to the
right conclusion that court could not entertain the petition having
become functus officio.
                                                                      F
      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              G
permitted to abuse the judicial process as he likes.

    14. This Court in Dr. Buddhi Kofa Subbarao v. K.
Parasaran & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2687 observed as under:
                                                                      H
    190        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 5 S.C.R.


A         "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."
B
         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.

c        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.
D
        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 lssar Das v. The State of Punjab,
  AIR 1972 SC 1295, this Court dealt with the case under the
E 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
F imprisonment. Therefore, the court should not lightly resort to
  the provisions of the Act 1958 in case of an accused found guilty
  of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

       18. In Mis. Precious Oil Corporation & Ors. v. State of
  Assam, AIR 2009 SC 1566, this Court dealt with the issue of
G application of the Act 1958 in case of offences punishable
  under Section 7 bf 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 Pyara/i K. Tejani v.
  Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 228
H wherein this Court has held as under:
          SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA                    191
                [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
       "The kindly application of the probation principle is        A
       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   B
       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            c
       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
untenable. The petition being devoid of any merit, is accordingly
dismissed with the cost of Rs.20,000/- which the petitioner is      D
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.
                                                                    E
N.J.                         Special Leave Petition dismissed.