suffered by him in a road accident and meanwhile the Presiding Officer had been transferred, it was but natural that the new Presiding Officer was required to hear the appellant on the quantum of the sentence, for faithful compliance with Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. and then, to pass an appropriate order of sentence. 15. The process and procedure contemplated under 4Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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 of the Cr.P.C. The occasion to comply with sub- section (2) of Section 235, thus, arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. 16. 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,