SUBRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a review of the judgment, we find that the opinion expressed at pages 10 to 12 (internal) corresponding to para 11 of the reported judgment in 1993 3 , is capable of being misinterpreted. The opinion expressed therein was required to be confined to the peculiar facts of the case, but it tends to give an impression as if it is a general exposition of law, which it was not meant to be. We, therefore, substitute that paragraph reading "since appellant 1 Subran. . committed by the four appellants - (pages 10 to 12, by following:

(2.) The judgment is accordingly reviewed and the aforesaid substitution in the judgment effected.