Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.235(1), (2) – Operation – Transfer of the Presiding Officer post conviction, the new Presiding Officer if obligated to hear the matter afresh including on the question of conviction:
Held: No – Post the judgment of conviction, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence – Complying with s.235(1), the appellant was duly heard and a judgment of conviction was recorded and pronounced on 30.04.2015 whereafter, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the question of sentence – However, since the appellant himself sought adjournments and exemption from personal appearance on the ground of his accident, meanwhile the Presiding Officer was transferred, and the new Presiding Officer was required to hear the appellant on the quantum of the sentence for compliance with s.235(2) and pass an appropriate order of sentence – The process and procedure contemplated u/s.235(2) cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded u/sub-section (1) thereof – Both clauses operate in their respective fields, though sub-section (2) is contingent upon the outcome under sub-section (1) of s.235 – The occasion to comply with sub-section (2) of s.235 arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed u/s.235(1) – Thus, once the judgment dated 30.04.2015 was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of s.235(1), whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of s.235 – The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under subsection (2) was to be complied with – No infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court holding that the new Presiding Officer would hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order. [Paras 14-16]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.353, 354 – Compliance with – Plea of the appellant that the judgment of conviction against him did not satisfy the ingredients of s.353 r/w s.354, Cr.P.C. and hence, there was no ‘judgment’ within the meaning of sub-section (1) of s.235:
Held: Rejected – Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court satisfied s.354(1) – The said judgment was read out by the Presiding Officer in open court, in the presence of the appellant’s counsel and it was well understood by his pleader – Thus, the Presiding Officer followed the procedure envisaged under sub-section (1) of s.353 – The Presiding Officer then listed the case to accord a hearing to the appellant on the quantum of sentence – There is no violation of ss.353 or 354. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.