JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by accused Sheshiya against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby he has been convicted under section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. 2. So far as the conviction of the accused appellant under section 325 I.P.C. is concerned, there is, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence which proves beyond realm of doubt that accused Sheshiya had inflicted a blow with "lathi" on the head of Mishrilal on December 12, 1974. The injured was examined by Dr. S. C. Jain P. W. 7, and found one contusion 21/2" over the right side parietal bone, 21/2" above the pinna of the right ear. According to the doctor, this injury was grievous in as much as it endangered the life. The doctor has further deposed that on account of this injury, the injured Mishrilal began bleeding severely from his ears and nostrils. The doctor has further deposed that at the time of his examination the injured was in a state of shock which was likely to cause death. There is thus no doubt that the injury sustained by the injured Mishrilal on his head was a grievous one. Again there is no doubt that this head injury was caused by the "lathi" blow inflicted by accused Sheshiya. 3. The injured P. W. 2 Mishri Lal has deposed that when he was sitting at the bus-stand of village Kharia along with P. W. 1 Mangilal and P. W. 3 Bhanwarlal, the accused Sheshiya came there with "lathi" and inflicted a blow with it on the right temple of his head. His evidence stands corroborated by the statement of P. W. 1 Mangilal and P. W. 3 Bhanwarlal. Not only that, even the defence witnesses D. W. 1 Bansilal and D. W. 2 Babulal have deposed that accused Sheshiya inflicted a blow on the head of P. W. 2 Mishrilal, the injured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, rightly convicted Sheshiya of the offence under section 325 I.P.C. 4. Not only that, even the defence witnesses D. W. 1 Bansilal and D. W. 2 Babulal have deposed that accused Sheshiya inflicted a blow on the head of P. W. 2 Mishrilal, the injured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, rightly convicted Sheshiya of the offence under section 325 I.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386 , that since no opportunity to the appellant was afforded to place before the court facts and material relating to the various factors bearing on the question of sentence, there was no compliance of the requirement under section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has further argued that non-compliance with the requirement of section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as mere irregularity in the course of the trial curable under section 465 Cr.P.C., but it vitiates the trial relating to the important stage of passing the sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant particularly drew my attention to the statement of the appellant Sheshiya under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein Sheshiya mentioned his age to be 22 years on January 6, 1976. It is contended that on the date of the offence i. e. December 12, 1974, the age of the accused-appellant was less than 21 years. If that is so, the learned counsel submits that the accused-appellant is entitled to be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1950. 5. I have gone through the record of the case and from the record, it is amply clear that no opportunity was given to the accused to place before the court the facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence in the manner i which section 235 (2) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Santa Singh's, case (1). The failure on the part of the trial court to afford opportunity to produce materials and make submissions in regard to the sentence, has prejudiced the accused-appellant. The failure on the part of the trial court to afford opportunity to produce materials and make submissions in regard to the sentence, has prejudiced the accused-appellant. I accordingly allow the appeal, and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 325 I.P.C. set aside the sentence awarded to the appellant and remand the case to the trial 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 provisions of section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Santa Singh's case (1). *******