Summarize the following court judgment. : Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1976. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 11.9.1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 392 of .1975 and Murder Reference No. 14/75). S.K. lain	 for the Appellant. O.P. Sharma	 for the Respondent. Judgment The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.N. Bhagwati	 J. S. Murtaza Fazal Ali	 J. gave a separate Opinion. BHAGWATI	 J. This appeal	 by special leave	 raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction of section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973. The appellant was tried before the Sessions Judge	 Ludhiana for.committing a double murder	 one of his mother and the other of her second husband. He was represented by a lawyer during the trial and after the evidence was concluded and the arguments were heard	 the learned Sessions Judge ad journed the case to 13th February	 1975 for pronouncing the judgment. It appears that on 13th February	 1975	 the judgment was not ready and hence the case was adjourned to 20th February	 1975 and again to 26th February	 1975. The Roznamcha of the proceedings shows that on 26th February	 1975 the appellant was present without his lawyer and the learned Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment convicting the appellant of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. It was common ground that after pronouncing the judgment convicting the appel lant	 the learned Sessions Judge did not give the appellant an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him and by one single judgment	 convicted the appellant and also sentenced him to death. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court and the case was also referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction as also the sentence of death. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court. The appeal is limited to the question of sentence and the principal argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that in not giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in regard to the sentence to 232 be imposed on him after the judgment was pronounced convict ing him	 the learned Sessions Judge committed a breach of section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 and that vitiated the sentence of death imposed on the appel lant. This argument is a substantial one and it rests on the true interpretation of section 235(2). This is a new provision and it occurs in section 235 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure	 1973 which reads as follows: "235 (	1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any)	 the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. (2) If the accused is convicted	 the Judge shall	 unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360	 hear the accused on the question of sentence	 and then pass sentence on him according to law. " This provision is clear and explicit and does not admit of any doubt. It requires that in every trial before a court of sessions	 there must first be a decision as to the guilt of the accused. The court must	 in the first instance	 deliver a judgment convicting or acquitting the accused. If the accused is acquitted	 no further question arises. But if he is convicted	 then the court has to "hear the accused on the question of sentence	 and then pass sentence on him according to law". When a judgment is rendered convicting the accused	 he is	 at that stage	 to be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence and it ' is only after hearing him that the court can proceed to pass the sentence. This new provision in section 235(2) is in consonance with the modern trends in penology and sentencing proce dures. There was no such provision in the old Code. Under the old Code	 whatever the accused wished to submit in regard to the sentence had to be stated by him before the arguments concluded and the judgment was delivered. There was no separate stage for being heard in regard to sentence. The accused had to produce material and make his submissions in regard to sentence on the assumption that he was ulti mately going to be convicted. This was most unsatisfacto ry. The legislature	 therefore	 decided that it is only when the accused is convicted that the question of sentence should come up for consideration and at that stage	 an opportunity should be given to the accused to be heard in regard to the sentence. Moreover	 it was 'realised that sentencing. is an important stage in the process of adminis tration of criminal justice as important as the adjudica tion of guilt and it should not be consigned to a subsidi ary position as if it were a matter of not much consequence. It should be a matter of some anxiety to the court to impose an appropriate punishment on the criminal and sentencing should	 therefore	 receive serious attention of the court. In most of the countries of the world	 the problem of sen tencing the criminal offender is receiving increasing atten tion and that is largely because of the rapidly changing attitude towards crime and criminal. There is in many of the countries	 intensive study of the sociology of crime 233 and that has shifted the focus from the crime to the crimi nal	 leading to a widening of the objectives of sentencing and	 simultaneously	 of the range of sentencing procedures. Today	 more than ever before	 sentencing is becoming a delicate task	 requiring an inter disciplinary approach and calling for skills and talents vary much different from those ordinarily expected of lawyers. This was pointed out in clear and emphatic words by Mr. Justice Frankfurter: "I myself think that the bench we lawyers who become judges are not very competent	 are not qualified by experience	 to impose sentences where any discretion is to be exercised. I d9 not think it is in the domain of the training of lawyers to know what to do with a fellow after you find out he is a thief. I do not think legal training gives you any special competence. I	 myself	 hope that one of these days	 and before long	 we will divide the functions of criminal justice. I think the lawyers are people who are competent to ascertain whether or not a crime has been committed. The whole scheme of common law judicial machinery the rule of evidence	 the ascertainment of what is relevant and what is irrelevant and what is fair	 the whole question of whether you can introduce prior crimes in order to prove intent I think lawyers are peculiarly fitted for that task. But all the questions that follow upon ascertainment of guilt	 I think require very different and much more diversified talents than the lawyers and judges are normally likely to posses. " The reason is that a proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence	 the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence	 the prior criminal record '	 if any	 of the offender	 the age of the offender	 the record of the offender as to employment	 the background of the offender with reference to education	 home life	 society and social adjustment	 the emotional and mental condition of the offender	 the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender	 the possi bility of return of the offender to a normal life in the community	 the possibility of treatment or training of the offender	 the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need	 if any	 for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These are factors which have to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence	 and there fore	 the legislature felt that	 for this purpose	 a separate stage should be provided after convic tion when the court can bear the accused in regard to these factors bearing on sentence and then pass proper sentence on the accused. Hence the new provision in section 235(2). But	 on the interpretation of section 235(2)	 another question arises and that is	 what is the meaning and content of the words "hear the accused". Does it mean merely that the accused has to be given an opportunity to make his submissions or he can also produce 17 1003 SCI/76 234 material bearing on sentence which has so far not come before the Court? Can he lead further evidence relating to the question of sentence or is the hearing to be confined only to. oral submissions ? That depends on the interpreta tion to be placed on the word 'hear '. 'Now	 the word 'hear ' has no fixed rigid connotation. It can bear either of the two rival meanings depending on the context in which it occurs. It is a well settled rule of interpretation	 hal lowed by time and sanctified by authority	 that the meaning of an ordinary word is to be found not so much in strict etymological propriety of language	 nor even in popular use	 as in the subject or occasion on which it is used and the object which is intended to be attained. It was Mr. Justice Holmes who pointed out in his inimitable style that "a word is not a crystal	 transparent and unchanged: it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used". Here	 in this provision	 the word 'hear ' has been used to give an opportunity to the accused to place before the court various circumstances bearing on the sen tence to be passed against him. Modern penology	 as pointed out by this Court in Ediga Annamma vs State of Andhra Pradesh(1) ' "regards crime and criminal as equally material when the right sentence has to be picked out". It turns the focus not only on the crime	 but also on the criminal and seeks to personalise the punishment so that the reformist component is as much operative as the deterrent element. It is necessary for this purpose that "facts of a social and personal nature	 sometimes altogether irrelevant	 if not injurious	 at the stage of fixing the guilt	 may have to be brought to the notice of the court when the actual sentence is determined". We have set out large number of factors which go into the alchemy which ultimately produces an appropriate sentence and full and adequate material relating to these factors would have to be brought before the court in order to enable the court to pass an appropriate sen tence. This material may be placed before the court by means of affidavits	 but if either party disputes the cor rectness or veracity of the material sought to be produced by the other	 an opportunity would have to be given to the party concerned to lead evidence for the purpose of bring ing such material on record. The hearing on the question of sentence	 would be rendered devoid of all meaning and content and it would become an idle formality	 if it were confined merely to hearing oral submissions without any opportunity being given to the parties and particularly to the accused	 to produce material in regard to various fac tors beating on the question of sentence	 and if necessary	 to lead evidence for the purpose of placing such material before the court. This was also the opinion expressed by the Law Commission in its Forty Eighth Report where it was stated that "the taking of evidence as to the circum stances relevant to sentencing should be encouraged and both the prosecution and the accused should be allowed to cooper ate in the process." The Law Commission strongly recommend ed that 'if a request is made in that behalf bY either the prosecution or the accused	 an opportunity for leading "evidence on the question" of sentence "should be given". We are	 therefore	 of the view that the hearing. (1) ; 235 contemplated by section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions	 but it is also intended to give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to place before the court facts and material relating to various factors beating on the question of sentence and if they are contested by either side	 then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing the same. Of course	 care would have to be taken by the court to see that this hearing on the question of sentence is not abused and turned into an instrument for unduly protracting the proceedings. The claim of due and proper hearing would have to be harmonised with the requirement of expeditious disposal of proceedings. Now there can be no doubt that in the present case the requirement of section 235(2) was not complied with	 inas much as no opportunity Was given to the appellant	 after recording his conviction	 to produce material and make submissions in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him. Since the appellant was. convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code	 only two options were available to the Sessions Court in the matter of sentencing the appellant: either to sentence him to death or to impose on him sentence of imprisonment for life. It the Sessions Court had	 in stead of sentencing him to death	 imposed on him sentence of life imprisonment	 the appellant could have made no griev ance of the breach of the provision of section 235(2)	 because	 even after hearing the appellant	 the Sessions Court would not have passed a sentence more favourable to the appellant 'than the sentence of life imprisonment. In such a case	 even if any complaint of violation of the requirement of section 235 (2) were made	 'it would not have been entertained by the appellate court as it would have been meaningless and futile. But	 in the _present case	 the Sessions Court chose to inflict death sentence on the appel lant and the possibility cannot be ruled out that if the accused had been given opportunity to produce material and make submissions on the question of sentence	 as contemplat ed by section 235(2)	 he might have been able to persuade the Sessions Court to impose the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The breach of the mandatory requirement of section 235(2) cannot	 in the circumstances	 be ignored as inconsequential and it must be held to vitiate the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court. It was	 however	 contended on behalf of the State that non compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 235(2) was a mere irregularity curable under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 as no failure of jus tice was occasioned by it and the trial could not on that account be held to be bad. The State leaned heavily on the fact that the appellant did not insist on his right to be heard under section 235(2) before the Sessions Court	 nor did he make any complaint before the High Court that the Sessions Court had committed a breach of section 235(2) and this omission on the part of the appellant	 contended the State	 showed that he had nothing to say in regard to the question of sentence and consequently	 no prejudice was suffered by him as a result of non compliance with section 235(2). This contention is	 in my opinion	 without force and must be rejected. It must be remembered that section 235(2) is a new provision intro 236 duced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure	 and 1973 and it is quite possible that many lawyers and judges might be unaware of it. Before the Sessions Court	 the appellant was not represented by a lawyer at the time when the judgment was pronounced and obviously he could not be aware of this new stage in the trial provided by section 235(2). Even the Sessions Judge was not aware of it	 for it is reasonable to assume that if he had been aware	 he would have informed the appellant about his right to be heard in regard to the sentence and given him an opportunity to be heard. It is unfortunate that in our country there is no system of continuing education for judges so that judges can remain fully informed about the latest developments in the law and acquire familiarity with modern methods and tech niques of judicial decision making. The world is changing fast and in our own country	 vast social and economic changes are taking place. There is a revolution of rising expectation amongst millions of human beings who have so far been consigned to a life of abject poverty	 hunger .and destitution. Law has	 for the first time	 adopted a posi tive approach and come out openly in the service of the weaker sections of the community. It has ceased to be merely an instrument providing a framework of freedom in which men may work out their destinies. It has acquired a new dimension	 a dynamic activism and it is now directed towards achieving socio economic justice which encompasses not merely a few privileged classes but the large masses of our people who have so far been denied freedom and equality social as well as economic and who have nothing to hope for and to live for. Law strives to give them social and economic justice and it has	 therefore	 necessarily to be weighted in favour of the weak and the exposed. This is the new law which judges are now called upon to administer and it is	 therefore	 essential that they should receive proper training which would bring about an orientation in their approach and outlook	 stimulate sympathies in them for the vulnerable sections of the community and inject a new awareness and sense of public commitment in them. They should also be educated in the new trends in penology and sentencing procedures so that they may learn to use penal law as a tool for reforming and rehabilitating criminals and smoothening out the uneven texture of the social fabric and not as a weapon	 fashioned by law	 for protecting and per petuating the hegemony of one class over the other. Be that as it may	 it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge was not aware of the provision in section 235(2) and so also was the lawyer of the appellant in the High Court unaware of it. No inference can	 therefore	 be drawn from the omission of the appellant to raise this point	 that he had nothing to Say in regard to the sentence and that consequently no prejudice was caused to him. So far as section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 is concerned	 I do not think it can avail the State in the present ease. In the first place	 non compliance with the requirement of section 235(2) cannot be described as mere irregularity in the course of the trial curable under section 465. It is much more serious. It amounts to by passing an important stage of the trial and omitting it altogether	 so that the trial cannot be aid to be that contemplated in the Code. It 237 is a different kind of trial conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code. This deviation consti tutes disobedience to an express provision of the Code as to the mode of trial	 and as pointed out by the Judicial Com mittee of the Privy Council in Subramania Iyer vs King Emperor(1)	 such a deviation cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. It goes to the root of the matters and the resulting illegality is of such a character that it vitiates the sentence. Vide Pulukurti Kotayya vs King Emperor(2) and Magga & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan.(3) Secondly	 when no opportunity has been given to the appellant to produce material and make submissions in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him	 failure of justice must be regarded as implicit. Section 465 cannot	 in the circumstances	 have any application in a case like the present. I accordingly allow the appeal and whilst not interfer ing with the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code	 set aside the sentence of death and remand the case to the Sessions Court with a direction to pass appropriate sentence after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in regard to the question of sentence in accordance with the provision of section 235 (2) as interpreted by me. FAZAL ALI	 J. I entirely agree with the judgment pro posed by my learned brother Bhagwati	 J.	 and I am at one with the views expressed by him in his judgment	 but I would like to add a few lines of my own to highlight some impor tant aspects of the question involved in this appeal. In this appeal by special leave which is confined only to the question of sentence an interesting question of law arises as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1973 hereniafter after referred to as 'the 1973 Code '. In the light of the arguments advanced before us by the parties the question may be framed thus: "Does the non compliance with the provi sions of section 235(2) of the 1973 Code vitiate the sentence passed by the Court?" In order to answer this question it may be necessary to trace the historical background and the social setting under which section 235(2) was inserted for the first time in the 1973 Code. It would appear that the 1973 Code was based on a good deal of research done by several authorities includ ing the Law Commission which made several recommendations for revolutionary changes in the provisions of the previous Code so as to make the 1973 Code in consonance with the growing needs of the society and in order to solve the social problems of the people. Apart from introducing a number of changes in the procedure	 new rights and powers were conferred on the Courts or sometimes even on the ac cused. For instance	 a provision for anticipatory bail was introduced to enable the	 accused to be saved from (1) (1901) 28 I.A. 257. (2) (1947) 74 I.A. 65. (3) ; at pp. 983 984. 238 unnecessary harassment. In its 48th Report the Law Commis sion	. while recommending the insertion of a provision which would enable the accused to make a representation against the sentence to be imposed after the judgment of conviction had been passed	 observed as follows: "It is now being increasingly recognised that a rational and consistent sentencing policy re quires the removal of several deficiencies in the present system. One such deficiency is the lack of comprehensive information as to characteristics and background of the offender. " "We are of the view that the taking of evi dence as to the circumstances relevant to sentenc ing should be encouraged	 and both the prosecution and the accused should be allowed to co operate in the process. " In the aims and objects of 1973 Code which have been given clause by clause	 a reference to this particular provision has been made thus; "If the judgment is one of conviction	 the accused will be given an opportunity to make his representation	 if any	 on the punishment proposed to be awarded and such representation shall be taken into consideration before imposing the sen tence. This last provision has been made because it may happen that the accused may have some grounds to urge for giving him consideration in regard to the sentence such as that he is the bread winner of the family of which the Court may not be made aware during the trial. " Para 6(d) of the statement of objects and reasons of the 1973 Code ' runs thus: "6. Some of the more important changes in tended to provide relief to the poorer sections of the community are : "(d) the accused will be given an opportunity to make representation against the punishment before it is imposed. ' ' The statement of objects and reasons further indicates that the recommendations of the Law Commission were examined carefully keeping in view	 among others	 the principle that "an accused person should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice". In these circumstances	 therefore	 I feel that the provisions of section 235 (2) are very salutary and contain one of the cardinal features of natural justice	 namely	 that the accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. 239 Section 235 of the 1973 Code runs thus: "235(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any)	 the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. (2) If the accused is convicted	 the Judge shall	 unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360	 hear the accused on the question of sentence	 and then pass sentence on him according to law. " A perusal of this section clearly reveals that the object of the 1973 Code was to split up the sessions trial or the warrant trial	 where also a similar provision exists	 into two integral parts (i) the stage which culminates in the passing of the judgment of conviction or acquittal; and (ii) the stage which on conviction results in imposition of sentence on the accused. Both these parts are absolutely fundamental and non compliance with any of the provisions would undoubtedly vitiate the final order passed by the Court. The two provisions do not amount merely to a ritual formula or an exercise in futility but have a very sound and definite purpose to achieve. Section 235 (2) of the 1973 Code enjoins on the Court that after passing a judgment of conviction the Court should stay its hands and hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing the sentence in accordance with the law. This obviously postulates that the accused must be given an opportunity of making his representation only regarding the question of sentence and for this purpose he may be allowed to place such materials as he may think fit but which may have bear ing only on the question of sentence. The statute	 in my view	 seeks to achieve a socio economic purpose and is aimed at attaining the ideal principle of proper sentencing in a rational and progressive society. The modern concept of punishment and penology has undergone a vital transformation and the criminal is now not looked upon as a grave menace to the society which should be got rid of but is a diseased person suffering from mental malady or psychological frus tration due to subconscious reactions and is	 therefore	 to be cured and corrected rather than to be killed or de stroyed. There may be a number of circumstances of which the Court may not be aware and which may be taken into consideration by the Court while awarding the sentence	 particularly a sentence of death	 as in the instant case. It will be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule	 but the statement of objects and reasons of the 1973 Code itself gives a clear illustration. It refers to an instance where the accused is the sole bread earner of the family. In such a case if the sentence of death is passed and executed it amounts not only to a physical effacement of the criminal but also a complete socio economic destruction of the family which he leaves behind. Similarly there may be cases	 where	 after the offence and during the trial	 the accused may have developed some virulent disease or some mental infirmity	 which may be an important factor to be taken into consideration while passing the sentence of death. It was for these reasons that section 235(2) of the 1973 Code was enshrined in the Code for the purpose of making the Court aware of these circumstances so that even if the highest penalty of 240 death is passed on the accused he does not have a grievance that he was not heard on his personal	 social and domestic circumstances before the sentence was given. My learned brother has very rightly pointed out that our independence has led to the framing of numerous laws on various social concepts and a proper machinery must be evolved to educate not only the people regarding the laws which have been made for their benefit but also the Courts	 most of whom are not aware of some of the recent and the new provisions. It is	 therefore	 the prime need of the hour to set up Training Institutes to impart the new judicial re cruits or even to serving judges with the changing trends of judicial thoughts and the new ideas which the new judi cial approach has imbibed over the years as a result of the influence of new circumstances that have come into exist ence. The next question that arises for consideration is whether noncompliance with section 235(2) is merely an irregular ity which can be cured by section 465 or it is an illegality which vitiates the sentence. Having regard to the object and the setting in which the new provision of section 235(2) was inserted in the 1973 Code there can be no doubt that it is one of the most fundamental part of the criminal procedure and non compliance thereof will ex facie vitiate the order. Even if it be regarded as an irregularity the prejudice caused to the accused would be inherent and implicit because of the infraction of the rules of natural justice which have been incorporated in this statutory provision	 because the accused has been completely deprived of an opportunity to represent to the Court regarding the proposed sentence and which manifestly results in a serious failure of justice. There is abundant authority for this proposition to which reference has been made by my learned brother. The last point to be considered is the extent and import of the word "hear" used in section 235(2) of the 1973 Code. Does it indicate	 that the accused should enter into a fresh trial by producing oral and documentary evidence on the question of the sentence which naturally will result in further delay of the trial? The Parliament does not appear to have intended that the accused should adopt dilatory tactics under the cover of this new provision but contem plated that a short and simple opportunity has to be given to the accused to place materials if necessary by leading evidence before the Court bearing on the question of sen tence and a consequent opportunity to the prosecution to rebut those materials. The Law Commission was fully aware of this anomaly and it accordingly suggested thus: "We are aware that a provision for an oppor tunity to give evidence in this .respect may necessitate an adjournment; and to avoid delay adjournment	 for the purpose should	 ordinarily be for not more than 14 days. It may be so provided in the relevant clause. " 241 It may not be practicable to keep up to the time limit suggested by the Law Commission with mathematical accuracy but the Courts must be vigilant to exercise proper control over the proceedings so that the trial is not unavoidably or unnecessarily delayed. I	 therefore	 agree with the order of my learned Bhag wati	 J.	 that the appeal should be allowed on the question of the sentence and the	 matter should be sent back to the Trial Court for giving an opportunity to the accused to make a representation regarding the sentence proposed. V.P.S. Appeal allowed.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under section 302	 IPC	 and sentenced to death. On the date of the judgment his advocate was not present. The trial court did not give the accused an opportunity to be. heard in regard to the sentence as required by section 235(2)	 Cr.P.C.	 1973. The appellant also did not insist on his right to be heard. The conviction and sentence. were	 confirmed by the High Court. Even in the High Court the accused did not complain that the trial court had committed a breach of section 235(2). On the question whether the sentence is vitiated because of the violation .of section 235(2)	 HELD: The matter should be remanded to. the trial court for giving an opportunity to the appellant on the question of sentence. Per Bhagwati	 J: (1) Under section 235(1) the court must	 in the first instance	 deliver a judgment convicting or acquit ting the accused. If the accused is acquitted	 no further question arises. If the accused is convicted	 at that stage	 he must be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence	 and it is only after hearing him that the court can pass sentence. [232 D E] (2) Section 235(2) is a new provision in consonance with the modern trends in penology and sentencing procedures. Sentencing is an important stage in the process of adminis tration of criminal justice	 and should not be consigned to a subsidiary position. Many factors have to be considered before a proper sentence is passed such as the nature of the offence; the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence; the prior criminal record	 if any	 of the offender; his age; his record of employment; his background with reference to education; home life. sobriety and social adjustment; his emotional and mental condition; the pros pects for his rehabilitation; the possibility of his return to a normal life in the community; the possibility of treat ment or training Of the offender; the possibility that the sentence may Serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need	 if any for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of of fence. The material relating to these factors may be placed before the court by means of affidavits. The hearing contem plated by section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions	 but .it is also intended to give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to place. before the court facts and material relating to the various factors bearing on the question of sentence	 and if they are con tested by the other side	 then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing those factors. Otherwise	 the hearing would be devoid of meaning and content. The Court must however be vigilant to see that this hearing on the question of sentence is not abused and turned into an in strument for unduly protracting 1he proceedings. [232 E; G A B] Ediga Anammo vs State of Andhra Pradesh ; referred to. (3) If the trial court had	 instead of sentencing the appellant to death	 imposed on him the sentence of the imprisonment	 he would not be	 aggrieved by the breach of section 235(2 )	 because	 even after hearing the appellant	 the. trial court could not have passed a more favourable sen tence. But the trial court imposed death sentence and the possibility cannot be ruled out that if the 230 appellant has been given an opportunity to produce material and make submissions on the question of sentence	 he might have been able to persuade	 the trial court to impose the lesser penalty. [235 D E] (4) Since the section is a new provision it is quite possible that many lawyers and judges might be unaware of it. In the present case obviously the trial court as well as the appellant 's advocate in the High Court were aware of it. No inference can	 therefore	 be drawn against the appellant that he had nothing to say from his omission to raise this point in the High Court. [236 A] (5)(a) Non compliance with the requirement of the sec tion cannot be described as a mere irregularity curable under section 465. It amounts to by_passing an important stage of the trial so that the trial cannot be said to be that contemplated by the Code. Such deviation constitutes diso bedience of an express provision of the Code as to the mode of trial and hence cannot be regarded as a mere irregulari ty. [236 H] Subramania Iyer vs King Emperor (1901) 28 I.A. 257 referred to. (b) The; violation goes to the root of the matter and the resulting illegality is of such a character that it vitiates the sentence. [237 B] Pulukuri Kotayya vs King Emperor	 (1947) 74 I.A. 65 and Magga vs State of Rajasthan	 ; referred to. (c) When no opportunity has been given to the appellant in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him	 failure of justice must be regarded as implicit and section 465 cannot have any application. [137 B] Per Fazal Ali J. (1) The 48th Report of the Law Commis sion and the statement of objects and reasons of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure show that section 235(2) is a very salutary provision. It contains one of the cardinal fea tures of natural justice	 namely	 that the accused must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him. It seeks to achieve a socio econonmic purpose and is aimed at attaining the ideal principle of proper sentencing in a rational and progressive society. Section 235 is split up into two inte gral parts	 (a) the stage which culminates in the passing of the judgment of conviction or acquittal; and (b) the stage which	 on conviction	 results in imposition of sentence on the accused. Both these parts are absolutely fundamental and non compliance with any of the provisions would undoubt edly vitiate the final order passed by the Court. Section 235(2) enjoins on the Court to stay its hands after passing a judgment oF conviction and hear the accused on the ques tion of sentence before passing sentence. [238 H; 239 E; C] (2) There may lye a number of circumstances of which the Court may not be aware but which may be taken into consider ation by the court while awarding the sentence	 particularly a sentence of death. The accused must be given an opportu nity of making his representation and placing such materials which have a bearing on the question of sentence. Parlia ment has not intended that the accused should adopt dilatory tactics under the cover of this new provision but contem plated that a short and simple opportunity has to be given to the accused to place materials bearing on the question of sentence	 if necessary by leading evidence	 before the .Court	 and a consequent opportunity to the prosecution to rebut those materials. The Court must be vigilant to exercise proper control over the proceedings so that the trial is not unavoidably or unnecessarily delayed. [240 F G] (3) Non compliance with the section is not a mere irreg ularity which can be cured by section 465 of the Code. It is an illegality which vitiates the sentence. Having regard to the object and the setting in which the new provision was in serted	 there can be no doubt that it is one of the most fundamental parts of criminal procedure and non compliance thereof will ex facie vitiate the order. 231 Even if it be regarded as an irregularity the prejudice caused to the accused would be inherent and implicit because of the infraction of the rules of natural justice which have been incorporated in this provision	 since the accused has been completely deprived of an opportunity to represent to the Court regarding the proposed sentence and this manifest ly results in a serious failure of justice. [240 B C] [Both the learned Judges indicated that there must be a system of training judges in the application of socio eco nomic laws and in modern methods and techniques of decision making and sentencing procedures]