High Court, vide interim order dated 19.06.2015, stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 13.05.2019, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, having found that: 2.(i) the judgment of conviction was duly pronounced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. J.R. Ban- jara; and .(ii) there was no illegality in the successor-in-of- fice of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to hear and determine the quantum of the sentence, even in a case where the judgment of conviction was pro- nounced by his predecessor-in-office. 7. The High Court, consequently, directed the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. 8. The aggrieved appellant is before us. 9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “Judgment of acquittal or conviction 1. After