This order will dispose of Criminal Original No. 135/ W/80.
2. The facts under which the notices had been issued to the respondents are _ dealt in my order dated 29th March, 1980 and may be recaptulated.
3. A Writ Petition No. 2857 of 1980 was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 25th March, 1980 and was fixed for 26th March, 1980 as an urgent case. This writ petition had been filed by respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 Mr. Zafar Alam Chaudhry, Advocate.
4. The case was called throughout the day but none appeared. After going through the petition I remembered that I had dealt with another writ petition on the same subject-matter and as such I did not dismiss the same for non-prosecution on 26th March, 1980 and ordered its re-listing for 29th March, 1980. On this date the case was called several times throughout the day but neither the respondent No. 1 nor his counsel respondent No. 2 appeared. I directed the office to trace out the earlier writ petition which was discovered as Writ Petition No. 2007 of 1980 on the same subject- matter filed by the respondent No. 1 thro--ugh another counsel. In the subsequent writ petition No. 2857 of 1980 there was a certificate by the counsel that according to the instructions of his client no such petition has been previously moved and there was no indication of the earlier Writ Petition No. 2007 of 1980.
5. A persual of the subsequent Writ Petition No. 2857 of 1980 revealed that it was as a matter of fact a duplicate copy of the earlier writ petition. In these circumstances a notice of contempt of Court was issued to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 through whore tile petition had been filed. Two separate written statements were filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1 he admitted that he had not engaged the reason--dent No. 2 as a counsel in the case. Respondent No. 2 submitted in the written reply that the former Clerk of his brother Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate, was responsible for filing the second writ petition and that he was working in another Chamber and was made to sign the writ petition not at the behest of respondent No. 1 but inde--pendently. The evidence was recorded in the case and from the state-- ment of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate, it appears that on the day when the writ petition was filed the respondent No. 2 was not in his chamber, rather he was working in the chamber of Mian Munawar Hussain, Advocate. On the basis of this evidence I am satisfied that the respondent No. - 2 did not have the knowledge of earlier Writ Petition No. 2007 of 1980 having been filed in this Court on the same subject-- matter. I discharge respondent No. 2 of the notice.
6. Respondent No. 1 was to 'lead evidence today when he admitted his guilt and tendered unconditional apology and has put himself to the mercy of this Court. The respondent No. 1 is a young man and serving as a doctor in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. In view of his young age and that he is a Government servant 1 accept the apology on his behalf. 1 However, the respondent No. 1 is warned to be careful in future.
7. This Criminal Original No. 135/W/80 is accordingly disposed of.