¶1On July 30, 1963, appellee was charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drug Act, Code 1961, § 33-702. On the same day he appeared in court and the case was continued until August 20, 1963. On that date he entered a plea of not guilty and requested a trial by jury. On October 3, 1963, he withdrew his jury demand, entered a plea of guilty, and was referred to the Probation Office for a presentencing investigation. A subsequent motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was granted on October 17, 1963, and the case was reset for November 18, 1963. On that date both the government and appellee agreed to a continuance to December 11, 1963. At that time, upon motion by appellee, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution.
¶2Pursuant to a warrant issued on January 30, 1964, appellant was rearrested on March 11, 1964, and charged with the identical offense. At his request the case was continued until March 19, 1964, at which time he was arraigned, pleaded not guilty and requested a continuance until April 28, 1964. After a continuance of another day he was brought to trial on April 29, 1964..
¶3At the outset of the trial appellee moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground of double jeopardy. The court took the motion under advisement and asked the government to proceed with its case. Appel-lee’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case was denied but on the authority of District of Columbia v. Healy, D.C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 800 (1960), the court granted the motion to dismiss.
¶4In Healy this court held as a matter of first impression that a dismissal of an information for lack of prosecution from which no appeal was taken, was a dismissal with prejudice and barred the filing of a second information charging the same offense. While Healy was not further appealed, the highest court of this jurisdiction had occasion thereafter to consider the same question in Mann v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 304 F.2d 394 (1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 896, 83 S.Ct. 194, 9 L.Ed.2d 127. There the court expressly disapproved of the rule announced in Healy and stated that unless a dismissal for want of prosecution is granted pursuant to a finding that the Speedy Trial Clause of the Constitution has been violated, the dismissal is without prejudice to prosecution on a new indictment or information.
¶5*574Here the first dismissal was not granted pursuant to a finding that the Speedy Trial Clause of the Constitution had been violated. Accordingly, it was without prejudice, and the trial court’s reliance upon Healy was misplaced as it is no longer the law in this jurisdiction.
¶6Reversed.
¶7. The dissent implies that there is a third class of cases not covered in the Mann opinion under which a dismissal for want of prosecution is with prejudice. It does not elaborate on this view nor suggest that the first dismissal here could amount to a violation of the Speedy Trial Clause of the Constitution.
¶8. The dissent contends that the failure to enter a proper notation in the case at bar was fatal. While Mann suggests that at the time of the first dismissal a proper notation be made “as a matter of form,” this suggestion is of a supervisory rather than of a mandatory nature. There was no showing of prejudice here of how tile defect, if any, was other than harmless error.