JUDGMENT Sandeep 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. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 5. 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." 6. 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. 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. A copy of this order shall be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for circulation.