Emperor Vs. Shiboo

.....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.....lindsay, j.1. i think this application must be allowed. the applicant is a young boy named shiboo, who was convicted on a charge tinder section 323 of the indian penal code and sentenced to receive 10 stripes. at the same time his father was convicted of a similar offence and received an appealable sentence.2. the father appealed and when the case came up before the learned sessions judge the parties to the case compounded. the learned judge made an order for composition.3. the boy had no right of appeal and the learned sessions judge was therefore asked to deal with the case in revision. he came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to deal with the matter in this way and he refers to a ruling of this court--emperor v. husain khan (1016) i.l.r. 39 all. 293. that ruling, however, does not seem to me to affect the matter which i have now before me.4. section 439 authorizes the high court to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal, and if a court of appeal can allow the composition of an offence, it follows that the high court can allow the same in revision too. there is nothing therefore to prevent the parties from compounding the offence. on the merits the learned judge was obviously of the opinion that the case ought to be compromised but he thought that he had no authority in law to permit a composition.5. in this connection i may refer the learned judge to the ruling in emperor v. ram piyari (1909) i.l.r. 32 all. 153. this is a fit case in which composition ought to be allowed as the parties have made up their differences. i allow the application and set aside the conviction and sentence on shiboo, minor.