SAT PAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 30.3.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa and the judgment dated 9.10.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.
(2.) NOTICE of this petition was issued to Advocate General, Haryana on 18.10.1995. During the pendency of the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18276 of 1995 seeking permission of the Court to take the additional grounds mentioned in the application. Notice of this application was also issued to Advocate General, Haryana on 1.11.1995 for today. Before dealing with the merit of the case, I allow Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18276 of 1995 in view of the facts stated in the application and the petitioners are permitted to urge additional grounds mentioned in the application.
(3.) MR . H.S. Gill, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that in the present case mandatory provisions of Section 235(2) of the Code have been violated inasmuch as no effective opportunity was given to the petitioner regarding quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners. He further submitted that this point was not raised before the first Appellate Court but this point can be urged even at this stage. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1976 Criminal Law Times 571 and Allauddin Mian and others v. State of Bihar, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 628 : AIR 1989 SC 1456.;