Queen-empress Vs. Rahim Bakhsh

.....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 state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as.....john edge, c.j.1. this is an application in revision. an order was made that a certain person proceeded against by a magistrate under section 110 and the following sections of the code of criminal procedure should give security himself and should obtain two sureties for his good behaviour for one year. it is obvious that the man rahim bakhsh was a man against whom such an order should have been made. his own witness, who is a respectable man, gave him an exceedingly bad character. it was proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he was an associate of professional burglars and a receiver of stolen property. he lived and carried on an ostensible business of a milk seller (which in itself is an innocent occupation for a gentleman of his character), in the city of saharanpur. the sureties whom he tendered lived in the roorkee tahsil. one had been rejected when first offered. on his own examination he showed that he knew practically nothing of the man for whop he was coming from roorkee to act as surety. the magistrate considered that sureties at roorkee would probably have but little influence over a gentleman like rahim bakhsh residing at saharanpur. in my opinion the magistrate came to a proper conclusion. the object of requiring security to be of behaviour is, not to obtain money for the crown by the forfeiture of recognizances, but to insure that the particular accused person shall be of good behaviour for the time mentioned in the order. it seems to me to be reasonable to expect and require that the sureties to be tendered should not be sureties from such a distance as would make it unlikely that they could exercise any control over the man for whom they were willing to stand surety. of course magistrates must not act arbitrarily in these cases: they must be guided in each case by the facts of the case. i am certainly not prepared to follow the decision of the calcutta court in the case of narain sooboddhee 22 w.r. cr.r., 37. i dismiss this application.