A. A. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the original complainant against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Surat allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 1 against his conviction under sec. 420 of the I. P. C. passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Surat sentencing him to suffer R. I. for two years and to a fine of Rs. 1 0 in default further R. I. for three months. ( 2 ) THE facts as disclosed in the complaint briefly slated are as under:- The present appellant Hiralal Bhagwanji who was original complainant is a building contractor. He had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 his wife and his son to construct a building on their plot situated at Udhana near the city of Surat for Rs. 62 0 As per the terms of the agreement it was agreed that the respondent No. 1 had to pay Rs. 5 0 advance and thereafter balance was to be paid as per construction in progress. It was alleged by the complainant that even though he had made construction of the value of Rs. 42 0 and odd the respondent No. 1 had paid only Rs. 10 0 and even though he made a demand for it he did not pay any heed and no further amount was paid. He therefore stopped the construction. Thereafter the present respondent No. 1 went to his office and promised to pay the balance. He represented to the complainant that he wanted the original agreement to be shown to his wife and son so that the amount may be paid to him. He also told him at that time that he had lost his copy which was supplied to him at the time of the agreement. Relying on his word the complainant parted with the original agreement alleged to have been signed by the respondent No. 1 his wife and son. Thereafter the respondent No. I did not make any payment nor did he return the original agreement which he had taken away from the complainant. ( 3 ) THE complainant thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First class at Surat which was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First class 4 Court Surat. Thereafter the respondent No. I did not make any payment nor did he return the original agreement which he had taken away from the complainant. ( 3 ) THE complainant thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First class at Surat which was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First class 4 Court Surat. The learned Judicial Magistrate First class referred the case to the police for an inquiry under sec. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after receiving the report of the police he framed a charge against the accused. From the evidence that was before him he convicted and sentenced the accused for an offence under sec. 420 of the I. P. C. as mentioned above. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First class the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Sessions Court Surat. The appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Surat who allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the original complainant has filed this appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Jafrabadwala learned Advocate for the appellant-complainant raised two main contentions. His first contention was that in the conviction appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 in the Sessions Court no notice was issued on him and the appeal was decided by the Court in his absence. fie therefore urged that the order passed in the appeal was illegal. He urged that under sec. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code when a right was given to the private complainant to file acquittal appeal in the High Court it went without saying that he had a right of being heard even in conviction appeal filed by the accused in the Sessions Court. ( 6 ) IN support of his say he referred to sec. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code when a right was given to the private complainant to file acquittal appeal in the High Court it went without saying that he had a right of being heard even in conviction appeal filed by the accused in the Sessions Court. ( 6 ) IN support of his say he referred to sec. 417-and also referred to the case of Pritam Singh and another v. the State of Punjab 1956 Criminal Law journal 805 He submitted that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code were not exhaustive and principles of natural justice demanded that when the case was initiated on a complaint given by the complainant it was desirable and necessary that he should have been heard He urged relying on the decision referred to above that in sub sequent proceedings between the parties he would be prejudiced by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On merits he urged that there was no reason why the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have relied on the evidence of the complainant and his two witnesses. He denied that the witnesses were interested in the complainant He urged that when the agreement was executed in the office of the complainant it is but natural that only these persons who were present at that time would be cited as witnesses. He urged that there was no inherent infirmity in the evidence led by the complainant. He submitted that when there was no dispute about the amount which respondent No. 1 had to pay to the complainant unless the respondent No. 1 had taken away the document in the manner narrated by the complainant there was no necessity for him to file this complaint. He therefore urged that the matter be sent back to the lower Court for giving an opportunity to the complainant of being heard in the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention raised by Mr. Jafrabadwala for the appellant it would be worth-while to refer to several provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. IQ this connection secs. 422 and 423 are very material. Sec. 422 of the Code says that :- If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily it shall cause notice to be given to the appellant or his pleader. Jafrabadwala for the appellant it would be worth-while to refer to several provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. IQ this connection secs. 422 and 423 are very material. Sec. 422 of the Code says that :- If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily it shall cause notice to be given to the appellant or his pleader. and to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard and shall on the application of such officer furnish him a copy of the grounds of appeal; and in case of appeals under sec. 411a sub-sec. (2) or sec. 417 the Appellate Court shall cause a like notice to be given to the accused. Sec. 423 states that the Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case if such record is not already in Court. After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader if he appears and the Public Prosecutor if he appears and in case of an appeal under sec. 411a sub-sec. (2) or sec. 417 the accused if he appears the Court may if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering dismiss the appeal or may in an appeal from an order of acquittal reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made etc. . . . . It will thus be seen that in an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction law does not require that any notice of appeal should be given to the original complainant. The reliance placed by the learned advocate on sec. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code is misconceive (i. It may be noted that before this section was inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code when it was amended the complainant had no right of filing an acquittal appeal in the High Court. For the first time by insertion of this section complainant was given a right to move the High Court for giving him permission to file an acquittal appeal. But that does not mean that when under sec. 417 a right to file an appeal in the High Court was given to the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court he was automatically given a right of being heard even in a conviction appeal. But that does not mean that when under sec. 417 a right to file an appeal in the High Court was given to the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court he was automatically given a right of being heard even in a conviction appeal. If the Legislature wanted that the complainant should be heard in a conviction appeal arising out of a private complaint the Legislature could have suitably amended secs. 422 and 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code while inserting sec. 417 therein. In the Criminal Procedure Code as amended in 1955 a distinction has been made regarding the procedure to be adopted in committal proceedings instituted on a police report and proceedings instituted on a private complaint given by the complaisant. Similarly in warrant cases also such a distinction was made. Inspite of that the Legislature did not think it necessary to make any amendment in secs. 422 and 423 which categorically stated that in an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction a notice was to be served on the State Government and at the time of hearing of the appeal the Court was bound to bear the appellant or his pleader if he appeal the Public Prosecutor if he appeared. There is no mention of the complainant in these sections. This clearly goes to show that the complainant was not given any right of being heard in an appeal against conviction. The submissions made by the learned advocate relying on the provisions of sec. 417 therefore would not apply to the instant case. His grievance that he was likely to be prejudiced if he was not heard in the appeal is merely imaginary. After all proceedings to which he was not a party could never be binding to him. He referred to the case of Pritam Singh and another v. the State of Punjab 1956 Criminal Law Journal 805 equal to 1956 S. C. 415 and submitted that the observations made by the Supreme Court indicated that t4e verdict of a criminal Court is binding in subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. He submitted that the words subsequent proceedings included civil proceedings also and therefore the finding of the lower appellate Court would affect this right in a suit which he may be compelled to file for recovering the amount from the accused. He submitted that the words subsequent proceedings included civil proceedings also and therefore the finding of the lower appellate Court would affect this right in a suit which he may be compelled to file for recovering the amount from the accused. Now the relevant observations irs the case referred to by him are as under:- ( 8 ) WE do not want to lay down any hard and fast rule by which hands of the Court may in any way be fettered. It would be in the discretion of the Court below to issue a notice to the complainant in appropriate cases as held by Beaumont C. J. in the case of Emperor v. Chunilal Bhagwonji referred to earlier But we would like to emphasis that the complainant has no inherent right of being heard as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant. [the rest of the judgment is not material for the reports ] appeal dismissed. .