Judgment :- 1. This petition is filed by the accused in a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Palghat, wherein they, along with others, stand charge-sheeted for offences punishable under S.143, 294 and 427 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case arose in connection with a labour dispute in the Instrumentation Ltd., Kanjikode. While the case was pending, on 29th June, 1981, the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, Palghat, who was in charge of the prosecution, submitted a petition under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the Court's consent for the withdrawal of the prosecution. The matter was heard and while it was pending orders, on 27-7-1981 the Assistant Public Prosecutor presented a report stating that be was not pressing the withdrawal. The report stated that it was because of some mistake regarding the number of the case that the petition happened to be filed. It appears that the mistake was realised only after the petition was heard. The Court did not think that it was necessary to issue notice on the report to the concerned accused persons. On 28 71981 the Court passed orders directing the posting of the case for evidence. 3. The contention put forward in behalf of the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 11 in the case, is that having filed the petition for permission for withdrawal the Assistant Public Prosecutor had no authority to withdraw the petition and report that he was not pressing the petition. The further contention is that the report should not have been acted upon without notice to the accused. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Nagaswara Sastri v. Satyanarayanan, (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 62. It was contended that the principle 'audi alteram partem' would apply in such cases and that the petitioners were entitled to have notice. I do not think that the decision is of any guidance in the present case. What 'audi alteram partem' means is that'no man shall be condemned unheard'. It is true that if the application for withdrawal had been allowed the petitioners would have been benefited. That does not necessarily mean that an adverse order taken on the application for granting permission for withdrawal would amount to condemning the accused. What 'audi alteram partem' means is that'no man shall be condemned unheard'. It is true that if the application for withdrawal had been allowed the petitioners would have been benefited. That does not necessarily mean that an adverse order taken on the application for granting permission for withdrawal would amount to condemning the accused. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not insist that notice should be given to an accused person or that he should be heard before disposing of an application for permission to withdraw a prosecution. If that be so, it does not stand to reason that be should be given notice or should be beard before the Court acts on a report by the Public Prosecutor that he does not want to press the withdrawal. It is pertinent to note that decisions are to the effect that a defacto complainant though interested in the prosecution has no locus standi in the matter of withdrawal of a case initiated on a police report: (See Gulli Bhagat v Narain Singh, ILR. 2 Patna 708). The petitioners' contention based on violation of the principles of natural justice has therefore no force. 4. Reliance was then placed on Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 500 The decision relates to the scope of the Court's power of review under S.362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the Court did not take a decision on the application for permission for withdrawal before the report was filed, there is no question of any review arising in the case. The position might have been different if final orders had been passed on the application for permission to withdraw. Whether in such cases the order granting permission to withdraw would by itself amount to withdrawal of the prosecution and whether it is open to the pro section to seek permission of the Court to continue the prosecution on the ground that the original application on which consent for withdrawal was given was filed under a mistake and whether the accused should be heard are moot questions which need not be answered in this case. 5. 5. S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates (1) a request by the Prosecutor for the consent of the Court for withdrawal of the prosecution; (2) satisfaction on the part of the Court that the case is a fit one for giving consent; and (3) a formal order of discharge or acquittal as the case may be on such consent being given. In the present case the Court only heard on the first point viz., the request for consent It was pending decision on the question of consent that the report was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the application seeking consent was filed under a mistake. The Court was perfectly within its powers in taking into account the said report and decide that consent need not be given for withdrawal. That is the effect of what the Court has done in the instant case when it directed the case to be posted for evidence. No interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. Dismissed.