Court denies petitioner's request to waive personal appearance post-judgment; cites legal provisions; emphasizes alternative remedy.

The Court declined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner post-judgment, citing Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits altering judgments once signed, except for specific errors. The petitioner's request did not fall under these exceptions, and reliance on previous cases was deemed inapplicable. The Court highlighted the availability of a remedy under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for seeking dispensation with personal appearance before the trial court, ultimately refusing to interfere with the previous order and finding no need for clarification.

---

---

Issues:
Dispensing with personal appearance of petitioner before trial court after judgment signed.

Analysis:
The case involves a petition where the petitioner, a 70-year-old senior citizen, sought dispensation with his personal appearance before the trial court due to health issues. The Court had previously dismissed the petition and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel argued for dispensing with personal appearance, which was objected to by the respondent's counsel citing that such requests should be made before the judgment is pronounced. The Court noted that under Section 362 Cr.P.C., it cannot alter a judgment once signed, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The petitioner's request to dispense with personal appearance does not fall under these categories, hence the Court was unable to consider it post-judgment.

The petitioner relied on a previous decision where the Court had dispensed with appearance before pronouncement, but the current situation did not align with that case. Another case from the Kerala High Court was cited, where time limits were extended under exceptional circumstances without violating Section 362 Cr.P.C. However, the Supreme Court held that this section imposes an absolute prohibition on altering judgments post-signing, even under inherent powers of the Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to seek dispensation with personal appearance before the trial court, and hence, declined to interfere with the previous order, concluding that no clarification was necessary.

---