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 appellant, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 353 read with Section 354 of the Cr.P.C. and hence, there is no 5`judgment’ rendered in the eyes of law within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. 18. We are, however, not impressed by the submission. We say so for the reason that the Trial Court delivered a self- speaking judgment of conviction which satisfies all the constituents illustrated in Section 354(1) of the Cr.P.C. Further, the operative part of the Judgment as well as the order passed on that very date for granting exemption from personal appearance to the appellant, reveal that the said judgment of conviction 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. The