Emperor Vs. Gulzari Lal

act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 406--criminal breach of trust--charge--criminal procedure code, sections 222, 231. - 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..........apply. this sub-section is in the following terms: 'when the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234: provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates' shall not exceed one year.' it seems to me clear that particulars as required by this section had been given--in fact more particulars than it was necessary to give to the-accused were given in the charge. it has been argued by the learned vakil for the applicant that because it was in the power, or may have been in the power, of the prosecution to supply fuller particulars, they right to have done so, and are not entitled to the benefit of the latter part of the section. i find, however, nothing in the code of criminal procedure to warrant such an argument. this case is not governed by the decision of their lordships of the privy council in the case of subrahmania ayyar v. king-emperor (1901) i.l.r. 25 mad. 61 s.c. 5 c.w.n. 866 inasmuch as in that case the offences with which the accused was charged extended over a period longer than a year. for these reasons the application is refused. the applicant must surrender himself and undergo the rest of his sentence.