TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies petitioner's request to waive personal appearance post-judgment; cites legal provisions; emphasizes alternative remedy.</h1> <h3>K.M. Mammen Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax</h3> The Court declined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner post-judgment, citing Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits altering ... Prosecution proceedings under the Income Tax - Permission for dispensation with his personal appearance before the trial Court - age of the petitioner is 70 years - Section 362 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is now seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial Court, which is neither a clerical nor an arithmetical error, as such, this Court is clearly barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to consider the request of the petitioner at this juncture. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in the case of Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, [1760315 ] has held that the prohibition under Section 362 Cr.P.C., is absolute and after the judgment is signed, even the High Court, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has no authority or jurisdiction to alter / review the same. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was purported to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. In fact, the petitioner is having a remedy under Section 205 Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, for dispensing with his appearance, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Under the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with its order dated 28.02.2019, as such, this Court concludes that no clarification is required. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
