I.D. DUA, J.

(1) THIS appeal (Cr. A. No. 201 of 1966) alongwith three other appeals (including an appeal by the State against the acquittal of two accused persons) was disposed of by us on 28/09/1970. A review petition under Order XL of the Supreme court Rules (Review Petition No. 46 of 1970) was later presented on behalf of the appellant Baburao Bajirao Patil (accused No. 7 in the Trial court) for re-hearing this appeal so far as he is concerned on the ground that Mr. Frank Anthony, his learned counsel was under the impression at the time of bearing that he was not being called upon to reply to the arguments of the counsel for the State so far as accused No. 7 is concerned and that for this reason he did not address any arguments in reply. On 11/01/1971, after hearing both sides we considered it proper to permit Mr. Anthony to reply to the arguments of the State counsel. Mr. Anthony then addressed, us on the case against the appellant, BaburaoBajirao Patil on 29/01/1971 and we are now concerned only with his case. It may at the outset be observed that the learned counsel in reply emphasised what he had said in his opening address and nothing new was brought to our notice.

(2