ORDER

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and having noticed the conduct of the appellant immediately after the mistake in the reporting was noticed, we think that this is a case in which a harsh view was not called for. Immediately after he realised that there had been a mistake he on his own tendered an apology by printing the same on the front page of the newspaper even before any notice was issued by the Court. Even before the Court he appeared and tendered an unqualified apology. The same was however not accepted on the ground that he had acted irresponsibly and the High Court felt the need to disgrace him. It further felt that allowing him to go unpunished would be bad for society.

2. We may point out that after the notice was issued by this Court on 9-5-1996, he once again filed an affidavit stating that it was a mistake on his part and as soon as he realised it, he, on his own, printed an apology on the front page of his newspaper. He states that once again he tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for the mistake committed by him in giving expression to his views in print. He requests that the apology may be accepted.

3. We a