1. - Notice have been accepted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The main point urged by Shri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice of the application moved by the respondent for condonation of delay had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 8.4.1994 was passed by the learned Trial Court. If a petition or application is not filed within the period of limitation, it cannot be entertained and the party concerned acquires a right of having the petition or application dismissed. In such a matter the party concerned should be heard before the Court exercises its power of condoning the delay, as has been held by the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Shaiad Chandra Vindayak Dongre and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 42. The learned Trial Court appears to have passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioners. In this view of the matter this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.3.1994 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to hear the petitioners before deciding the application moved by the respondent for condonation of delay in filing the complaint and it is mad