JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 20.4.2002 and 12.6.2002 respectively dismissing the complaint of the petitioner and dismissing his application for restoration of complaint. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. The complaint was at the initial stage for appearance of the complainant who was exempted from personal appearance and was fixed for consideration on 20.4.2002. When*the case was called on due date, none put in appearance therefore, the case was ordered to be called again. The case was again called at 4.50 p.m., when none put in appearance. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code). The complainant then moved an application for restoration of the complaint which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.6.2002. Being aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant records. 4. It is not in dispute that the case was called at 4.50 p.m. on 20.4.2002, when none put in appearance, the case was dismissed for default of appearance. There is no dispute that prescribed Court hours of all the subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh are from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., with an interval for lunch from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. Thus, the Court proceedings can take place only between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., except from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m., unless the parties agree for conducting the case before or after the Court hours. Thus, the learned trial Magistrate called and dismissed the complaint beyond the Court hours. No litigant can be legitimately expected to appear before or after the Court hours to attend to his case. Therefore, the complaint could not have been dismissed for default of appearance of the complainant after the court hours. (See Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2001 titled M/s. Him Advances and Savings Pvt. Ltd. v. Dila Ram, decided by this Court on 9.1.2003). 5. Therefore, the complaint could not have been dismissed for default of appearance of the complainant after the court hours. (See Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2001 titled M/s. Him Advances and Savings Pvt. Ltd. v. Dila Ram, decided by this Court on 9.1.2003). 5. It may also be pointed out that the complaint has been dismissed under Section 256 of the Code as is evident from the impugned order dated 20.4.2OO2. No order dismissing the complaint for want of appearance of the complainant could be passed under Section 256 supra. This section will apply only when the summons had already been issued for appearance of the accused under Section 204 of the Code and in case of default of appearance by the complainant on the day appointed for appearance of the accused or on a date to which the case may be adjourned, the Magistrate may acquit the accused or adjourn the case for some other day or may dispense with the appearance of the complainant provided that he is represented by a counsel. 6. In the case in hand, preliminary evidence was not recorded and no process was ordered to be issued under Section 204 of the Code. Therefore, the impugned order could not be passed even in exercise of the powers vested in a Magisterial Court under Section 256 of the Code. Thus, the order dated 20.4.2002, dismissing the complaint for default of appearance of the complainant is bad in law and cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above conclusions and the effect thereof, the question whether an application for restoration of the complaint was maintainable or not is rendered academic only and need not be gone into. Suffice to say that in view of the above conclusion the order dated 12.6.2002 passed on the application for restoration of the complaint and the application itself are rendered infructuous. 8. As a result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remitted to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh to proceed with the complaint from the stage where it stood immediately before the passing of the order dated 20.4.2002, dismissing the complaint. 9. The petitioner through counsel is directed to appear before the Court below on 28.4.2003.