M.L. Shrimal, J.
1. This jail appeal by accused Babulal son of Dhulia Harijan is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota dated 30-8-1976 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The appellant was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota for attempting to commit the murder of Munshi & Ramswaioop on 31-1-1976 at 4.30 p.m near a betel shop, situated in Bhimganj Mandi, Kota He was represented by a counsel during the trial. After the prosecution evidence was closed on 14-8-1976 the accused appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. He denied his complicity in the crime and examined one witness in his defence. Thereafter the case was posted for arguments on August 28. 1976 and after hearing the arguments the learned Judge posted the case for judgment on August 30, 1976. The learned Additional Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment convicting the accused appellant of the offence under Section 307, IPC, and sentenced him as mentioned above. It is a common ground between the parties that after pronouncing the judgment convicting the accused appellant the learned Judge did not give the appellant an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence to be imposed upon him and by one single judgment convicted the appellant and also sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved with the afore-mentioned judgment dated 30th August, 1976 the accused-appellant has came up in appeal before this Court.
3. This appeal can be disposal of on a preliminary point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and as such I need not decide this case en merits. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the trial court committed a gave error of law in not giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in regard to the sentence to be in posed upon him after the judgment was pronounced. This argument is a substantial one and it rests on the true interpretation of Section 235(2) Cr. P.C. 1973. The case is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2386.
4. Following the authoritative pronouncement made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I allow this appeal, set aside the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant and remand the case to the trial court with a direction to pass appropriate sentence after giving an opportunity to the accused appellant to be heard in regard to the question of tendency in accordance with the provisions of Section 235(2) Cr. P.C, 1973 as interpreted by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above noted case.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Looking to the fact that the accused appellant is behind the bars, the record of this case may be sent to the trial court forth-with.