9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.02.2019. 4. The age of the petitioner is 70 years and the same is not in dispute. But, this Court is barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., to entertain the petitioner's plea for dispense with, after pronouncing the order on 28.02.2019. Had the Counsel been sought for dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner prior to the pronouncement of this order on 28.02.2019, this Court would have considered the request at that point of time itself. But the fact remains that this Court has heard the matter and reserved it for orders at its Principal Seat, Chennai on 03.12.2018 and pronounced the orders at Chambers, Madurai on 28.02.2019. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Counsel to sought for the same before pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court reported in MANU/KE/2394/2011, in the case of Sreedharan v. Bharathan, wherein, the Kerala High Court, in a case of extending the time limit for payment of fine / compensation, by exercising its powers under exceptional circumstances, has extended the time limit stating that it would not be offending Section 362 Cr.P.C., but would only be securing the ends of justice. It further held that since such circumstances can occur only rarely, may be only once in a case, no successive petitions can be entertained. 10. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1738, in the case of Narayan Prasad v. State of Bihar, has held that the prohibition under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
