JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present revision Under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code) is directed again the Order dated 23rd July 1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 29th January 1986 dismissing the complaint u/s 203 of the Code and refusing to issue the process against the present applicant in a complaint case Under Sections 415, 416, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in brief leading to the present revision are that a complaint was filed by Sri JanarSan Prasad Sharma, Asstt. Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee against D.K. Agarwal, the present applicant for the alleged offence Under Sections 415, 416, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant was that the Opposite Party was not employed in the University but got an advertisement published in the Times of -India dated 24th August, 1985 and 29th August, 1985 to the following effect: Roorkee University Entrance Examination 1986 Admission Notice: Applications are invited for the ' First Batch ' of Postal Guidance course of four months duration for Roorkee University Entrance Examination, 1986 for Bachelors Degree courses in Engg. and Architecture. For further details prospectus and application form Directly write to Director, University Publication (Postal Guidance Cell) Roorkee Uttar Pradesh 247667. Last date for registration 26th September 1985. 3. The present applicant has shown himself to be Director, University Publication (Postal Guidance Cell) Roorkee whereas the complainant has alleged that the present applicant was not associated with any post about Entrance Examination nor he has any other authority about the admission of the students. In other words it was alleged in the complaint that the present applicant deliberately got the aforesaid advertisement published in the newspapers. Consequently many persons applied for application form etc. and the applicant has earned a huge amount by practising cheating by impersonation and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. According to the allegations in different paragraphs of the complaint, prima facie evidence of cheating by impersonation and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property was made out. The Magistrate refused to issue process on the ground that the Roorkee University did not suffer any loss. According to the allegations in different paragraphs of the complaint, prima facie evidence of cheating by impersonation and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property was made out. The Magistrate refused to issue process on the ground that the Roorkee University did not suffer any loss. The order of the Magistrate refusing to issue process was set aside by the impugned order dated 23rd July 1986, and process has been directed to be issued against the present applicant. 4. Sri Girish Chandra Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the complaint was filed by Sri Janardan Prasad Sharma, Assistant Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee whereas the revision was filed by Dr. O.N. Cbaturvedi, Registrar University of Roorkee who was different from Sri Janardan Prasad Sharma, Assistant Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee. It was accordingly urged that Dr. O. N. Chaturvedi, Registrar, Roorkee University has got no authority to file the revision. The applicant against whom the complaint was filed was not made a party to the revision, filed by the Roorkee University. Only State of Uttar Pradesh was made a party and that the applicant was not heard in Revision. Consequently the principles of natural justice had been violated. Reliance was placed on A.S. Puri Vs. K.L. Ahuja, AIR 1970 Delhi 214 . The learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, the first point for determination is as to whether the revision filed by Dr. O.N. Chaturvedi was maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge. Suffice it to say that even though the complaint was filed by Sri Janardan Prasad Sharma, Assistant Registrar Roorkee University, Roorkee and even if the revision has been filed by Dr. Chaturvedi, the Registrar, there does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the applicant that Dr. Chaturvedi, the Registrar, Roorkee University, Roorkee was not authorised to file revision or to supervise the complaint on behalf of the University. The Rules regarding conduct of the University were not shown. Normally the Registrar and Assistant Registrar have got the authority to supervise any litigation or to file application or revision on behalf of the University. Further this point was not taken before court below where revision was pending and was allowed. I do not find any substance in this submission. 6. Normally the Registrar and Assistant Registrar have got the authority to supervise any litigation or to file application or revision on behalf of the University. Further this point was not taken before court below where revision was pending and was allowed. I do not find any substance in this submission. 6. Reverting to the next point that the applicant was 'not made a party in the revision nor he was heard, consequently the principles of natural justice were violated. In a complaint case unless the process is issued u/s 204 of the Code, the person shown as opposite party in the complaint does not become a party to the inquiry proceeding nor his interests are affected. It is only after the order for issue of process has been passed and the same being served on him that a person shown as opposite party in the complaint becomes a party to the case. Only process being issued and served on him that he gets a right of being heard. Even assuming before issue of process a person, is shown as accused in the complaint appears and participates in the proceedings nontheless he does not become a party to the case. But he supervises the litigation as a man of public. I am accordingly of the view that till the process was issued, the present applicant even though shown as opposite party in the complaint but he had got no right of being heard and the principles of natural justice cannot be said to be violated. In Dr. S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary, Patna and Another, AIR 1983 SC 595 it was held as follows: An inquiry u/s 202 is not in the nature of a trial for there can be in law only one trial in respect of any offence and that a trial can commence only after process is issued to the accused. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it is decided to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings u/s 202 he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The said proceedings are not strictly proceedings between the complainant and the accused. A person against whom a complaint is filed does not become an accused until it is decided to issue process against him. Even if he participates in the proceedings u/s 202 he does so not as an accused but as a member of the public. The object of the inquiry u/s 202 is the ascertainment of the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for the issue of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless on which no action need be taken. 7. These observations are relevant to explain that unless process has been issued the person against. whom complaint is filed does not become party to the case nor can be said to be an aggrieved person. The applicant was not a necessary party in the revision hence he was correctly not made a party to the Revision before the Sessions Judge, filed by the complainant. 8. As regards the right of hearing to the applicant, the person against whom complaint was filed, as stated above he was not a necessary party in revision against the order refusing to issue process against him u/s 203. It is well known that the principle of natural justice is in fact a concept of English Common Law. This involves the principle of fairness. The principle of natural justice rests on Latin Maxims which were taken from common law from JUS NATRAIE. See local Govt. Alridege 1915 AC 120. Before actually process was issued to the applicant, against whom complaint was filed he was not a necessary party in revision before Sessions Judge. It was just a stage to ascertain whether there was any reliability in the complaint. He was accordingly not entitled to be heard in revision before Sessions Judge. The case of R.S. Puri v. K.L. Ahuja relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant appeared to be in the teeth of the observations made by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Dr. S.S. Khannas' case hence does not appear to be of any assistance in the present case. lam of the view that under the circumstances of the case the process has correctly been issued against the applicant by the impugned order. I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 9. S.S. Khannas' case hence does not appear to be of any assistance in the present case. lam of the view that under the circumstances of the case the process has correctly been issued against the applicant by the impugned order. I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed.