ORDER : P. Subramonian Poti, J. This is a petition to review the judgment passed on 18-2-1983 holding that the 3rd respondent is guilty of contempt in disobeying the order of this court in letter and in spirit, that the apology offered in the counter - affidavit cannot be accepted for reasons mentioned in the order and that in view of the offer by the offender to tender apology in any other form so as to make amends for his conduct he be permitted to tender an apology in public. We therefore made directions to tender apology in Kozhancherry where the 3rd respondent is working as a Junior Engineer, Telephones. 2. An apology may or may not be accepted by a court depending upon whether a court is satisfied with the genuineness of the apology tendered and the seriousness of the contempt. If the apology is empty or hollow there is no meaning in accepting the apology. Quite often we find ritualistic mention in counter - affidavits of offer of apologies. Quite often they may not be expressions of sincere regret. The mere fact that an apology is offered need not save a person from consequences of his guilt if he is found guilty of contempt. The court will have to consider judiciously whether there is genuine regret expressed and whether in the circumstances that apology would be sufficient and adequate. 3. If a person desires to go back on the willingness to apologise before it is accepted or the expression of the apology in the form directed by the court is carried out it is open to him to resile from his offer. That is because the apology is purely voluntary in character and the court cannot enforce the apology when the party goes back on his offer. If any person who has offered an apology to be made in a particular manner feels later that he should not have made that offer even if he subsequently apologises it is doubtful whether the apology would be sincere. The third respondent here, faced with a situation that his apology tendered in the counter affidavit was not accepted in the court, offered that he will apologise by publishing regret in newspapers. It was then that the court suggested that he may apologise in public at Kozhancherry in the Panchayat office. This the third respondent was willing to do. The third respondent here, faced with a situation that his apology tendered in the counter affidavit was not accepted in the court, offered that he will apologise by publishing regret in newspapers. It was then that the court suggested that he may apologise in public at Kozhancherry in the Panchayat office. This the third respondent was willing to do. Now the third respondent seems to feel that to go over to Kozhancherry and apologise there “means more humiliation than what has already taken place.” He refers to the publicity that the news of the proposed apology has received and conceives that as sufficient punishment for him. If the third respondent has second thoughts over his offer of apology and therefore seeks review of the order we must naturally agree that he need not apologise. That is left to his volition. Of course, whether the apology already offered by him in the counter - affidavit or a similar apology to be again made in court would be sufficient or not is another matter. For the reasons stated, in the circumstances of the case, such an apology would not be sufficient. That we have already mentioned in our judgment. Therefore we vacate the judgment with regard to the public apology to be offered by the 3rd respondent. The case will take its own course. We direct the office to post the case for further orders on the 7th of March and direct the 3rd respondent to be present. Communicate by telegram to the Panchayat President, Kozhancherry that the conduct of the meeting whereat Sri. Narayanan Unni, Junior Engineer is to offer apology tomorrow stands cancelled.