Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 235 –A judgment of conviction shall have two components; namely, (i) Judgment on the point of conviction; and (ii) Where the accused is convicted, a separate order of sentence to be passed according to law, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence- Once the judgment of conviction is delivered, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence- Various relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances, if any, are to be kept in mind by the Court while awarding an adequate and proportionate sentence- In this case, the accused was held guilty and convicted vide judgment pronounced on 30.04.2015- Before he could be heard on the quantum of the sentence, the accused moved an application to exempt him from personal appearance on the ground that he had met with an accident. In view of that application, the matter was adjourned on a few occasions to enable the accused to recover from the accident.In the meanwhile, the Presiding Officer of the Court,, who had convicted him, was transferred – A new Presiding Officer was posted in his place. The question raised in this appeal is whether the new Presiding Officer was obligated not only to hear the accused on the question of sentence but also on the point of conviction? SC Held: The process and procedure contemplated under Section 235(2) cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded under 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 Section 235. The occasion to comply with subsection (2) arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed under Section 235(1) of the Cr.PC -Once the judgment was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) was to be complied with-The successor officer should therefore hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order.