( 1 ) ADMIT. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that inadvertently due to noting a wrong date in his diary, he could not appear before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 26th April, 2000 whereby the complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner is aggrieved of this order dismissing the complaint and has challenged the same by way of the instant petition.

( 2 ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that at this time notice need not be issued to the respondent because no right of being heard has accrued to him as the case was at a pre-evidence stage and that he is not an accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and, therefore, the respondent need not be heard on the question whether the complaint can be restored or not. I have called upon Mr. Butalia, learned Counsel for the State, to assist me whether it is necessary for me to issue notice to the accused while disposing of this petition, the answer I have received is that it is not necessary for the reasons that the respondent has not become a party to the proceedings which have been dismissed for non-prosecution and, therefore, he need not be heard on t