Queen Vs. Naiada

Queen vs Naiada

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 31, 1969

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/447697

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/447697
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Turner, Officiating C.J., ;Pearson, ;Spankie and ;Oldfield, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 31, 1969
Subject: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen

Respondent

Naiada

Legal References

Reported In: (1875)ILR1All43

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes - an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed - then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

.....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..........or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. by section 389 an offender convicted of extortion under certain circumstances may be punished with transportation for life. by section 75, on a second conviction of certain offences, an offender 'shall be subject to transportation for life or to double the amount of punishment for which he would otherwise be liable.' in no section of the code which prescribes transportation as a punishment, with the exception of section 59, is the language used such as to leave the court any option regarding the duration of the term. it follows that a sentence of transportation for a period less than life can only be passed under the provisions of section 59, and consequently that when an offence is punishable, either with transportation for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years, if a sentence of transportation for a term less than life is awarded, the term cannot exceed ten years.

Full Judgment

1. When the Indian Penal Code was originally drawn, it was in the contemplation of the framers of the measure that no sentence of transportation should be passed for a less period than life, and the Bill was so prepared. When the Bill was before the Council, Section 59 was introduced, which enacts that in every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, the Court may, in lieu of awarding a sentence of imprisonment, sentence the offender to transportation, for a term no less than seven years, and not exceeding the term for which by the Code such offender is liable to imprisonment. No alteration appears to have been made in the language of the several sections which prescribed transportation as a punishment. Thus, in the majority of instances, the words used are as follows:--'shall be punished with 'transportation for life or with imprisonment which may extend, &c.;' While the Court has an option in determining the duration of the term of imprisonment, it has no option in determining the duration of the term of transportation. By Section 302 an offender convicted of murder shall be punished with death or transportation for life. By Section 307 an offender convicted of an attempt to murder shall, if hurt be caused, be liable to transportation for life, or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. By Section 389 an offender convicted of extortion under certain circumstances may be punished with transportation for life. By Section 75, on a second conviction of certain offences, an offender 'shall be subject to transportation for life or to double the amount of punishment for which he would otherwise be liable.' In no section of the Code which prescribes transportation as a punishment, with the exception of Section 59, is the language used such as to leave the Court any option regarding the duration of the term. It follows that a sentence of transportation for a period less than life can only be passed under the provisions of Section 59, and consequently that when an offence is punishable, either with transportation for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years, if a sentence of transportation for a term less than life is awarded, the term cannot exceed ten years.