Queen-empress Vs. Teja and ors.

act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 396 - dacoity in the course of which murder is committed--facts necessary to establish the offence provided for in section 396. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or..........these two men were members of the gang of dacoits engaged actually in that dacoity. as to zaharia there can be no question that he has brought himself within section 396 of the indian penal code. but as to teja it is necessary to consider whether the fact that the murder was committed outside the house at a time when he was inside the house takes his case out of section 396. in the case of queen-empress v. umrao singh i.l.r. 16 all. 437, a bench of this court said in its judgment: 'we are also of opinion that to establish a liability to the punishment provided in this section (section 396) it is necessary to prove that the person said to be liable was one of the persons who were conjointly committing dacoity, and was present when the act of murder in the dacoity was committed.' further on it was said: 'there is room for such doubt, particularly in the case of girwar singh and raghubar singh, for there is no evidence which places them within the house of hira lal at the time when the murder was committed.'2. if those two statements to which we have referred are to be taken as of general application, we entirely dissent from their correctness as statements of law. it is probable that in that particular case in which that judgment was delivered girwar singh and raghubar singh were not proved to have been conjointly with the others committing dacoity. however, on that we need express no opinion. in our opinion it matters not, when in the commission of a dacoity a murder is committed, whether the particular dacoit charged under section 396 was inside the house or outside the house, or whether the murder was committed inside or outside the house, so long only as the murder was committed in the commission of that dacoity. in our opinion these two men were, properly convicted of the offence punishable under section 396 of the indian penal code. we dismiss their appeals, and, confirming the convictions and sentences, we direct that those sentences be carried into effect.