B.P. Beri, J.
1. On Lalaram's complaint Netram, Ramratan and Ramjilal were convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 Months' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur. The accused preferred an appeal in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, in which the State and Lalaram were both impleaded as respondents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them by his judgment dated 4.10.1966. The complainant after obtaining special leavers from this Court has preferred' appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
2. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellate court did not issue any notice to the complainant for the hearing of the appeal and decided it after hearing the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The question which merges for consideration is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in not issuing a notice to the complainant Lalaram for the hearing of the appeal.
3. Section 422 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure reads:
422. Notice of appeal. - 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 with a copy of the grounds of appeal and in cases of appeals under Section 417, the Appellate Court shall cause a like notice to be given to the accused.
This section does not oblige the appellate court to issue any, notice to a complainant respondent. The principle of public policy is that after conviction the State comes in to the picture displacing, a private complainant. The, reason behind this policy is that private passions should not be permitted to creep in criminal cases prejudicing the objectivity. The State is the real party in such matters. We are fortified in the view we take by a long series, of decisions. Reference may be made to K. Veeranna v. N.S. Mastan Sab : AIR1960AP311 ; P.C. Tarapor v. Emperor A.I.R. 1942 Sind. 5; Paragji Bhulabhai v. Bhagwanji Bawabhai A.I.R. 1940 Bom. 14, Kartikram v. Emperor A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 123 and Raghunathmal Shermal Marwadi v. Patiram Sadaram A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 394. We are in respectful agreement with these decisions. The only discordant note comes from Htauda Mesh v. Ansmale Chettyar A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 247 where the learned Judges observations are in the nature of obiter dicta.
4. No other point having been pressed, this appeal fails and is dismissed.