Emperor Vs. Paras Ram Dube

act no. xlv of 1830 (indian penal code), sections 32, 83 - offence of rape committed by a boy under fourteen--presumption. - 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 state board. thus as far as the first part of the.....piggott, j.1. i called for the record of this case on examination of the sessions statement from the district of basti for the month of november, 1914. one paras ram, a boy described as being between 12 and 14 years of age, was charged with having committed the offence of rape on the person of a little girl about 7 years of age. the learned sessions judge has convicted in the alternative under section 376 or section 354 of the indian penal code, not because he was in any doubt as to the facts, but because he considered that there was a difficulty as to whether a boy of the age of the accused could legally be convicted of the major offence charged. the presumption of english law against the possibility of the commission of the offence of rape by a boy under the age of 14 years has no application in this country. the law on the subject of infancy in connection with criminal liability is laid down in sections 82 and 83 of the indian penal code and nowhere else. it was a simple question of fact which the learned sessions judge had to try, as to whether, in the course of the assault perpetrated by the accused on the person of this little girl, such penetration had been effected as is required by law to constitute the offence of rape. if the statement of the girl kolharia is read in connection with the medical evidence, there can be no doubt that the offence of rape was committed. i thought it advisable to place these remarks on record in view of the difficulty felt by the sessions judge. i do not propose to interfere with the sentence passed by him. the question of the proper punishment for an offence of this sort by boys of tender age is not an easy one, and many sessions judges of experience are of opinion that a sentence of whipping only is the most appropriate one that can be inflicted in such cases. i think the accused paras ram has been somewhat leniently dealt with, but that interference on the part of this court is not now called for. let the record be returned.