The contention of the appellant, that with the transfer of the Presiding Officer post his conviction, the new Presiding Officer was obligated to hear him afresh even on the question of conviction, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Once the judgment dated 30.04.2015 was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., 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 High Court has, thus, rightly held that the successor officer would hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order. We see no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court. 17. Learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently urges that the judgment of conviction, granted against the