Queen Vs. Jagat Mal

.....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..........of the order of the judge of farukhabad made in an appeal to him by ram gholam, gula mal, and jagat mal. these three persons were, along with others, tried and convicted by mr. c.w. watts, joint magistrate of farukhahad, of false swearing, under section 193, indian penal code, and respectively sentenced by that officer to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. the circumstances out of which the case arose are these. in january last three men, kanhaiya, bishan, and lalman, were prosecuted and convicted by the judge on a charge of grievous hurt, under section 326, indian penal code. after convicting and sentencing them, the judge directed that ten of the witnesses who had been examined in the case before him, including ram gholam and gula mal, should be tried by the magistrate of the district on a charge of giving false evidence. on receipt of the judge's order, mr. harrison, the magistrate, transferred the case to mr. watts, the joint magistrate, who had made the commitment in the grievous hurt case to the sessions court. in the course of his investigation for that commitment, jagat mal had been examined as a witness, and had then, in mr. watts' opinion, given false evidence, and mr. watts, having represented this state of things to the magistrate, received sanction for jagat mal being included in the proceedings directed by the judge under section 193. mr. watts having concluded the inquiry, committed the whole eleven accused for trial before himself, and convicted ram gholam, gula mal and jagat mal, and another (deferring judgment as regards the remaining seven). there was an appeal to the judge, but the result was its dismissal by him.3. ram gholam, gula mal, and jagat mal now apply to this court in revision, urging that mr. watts had no jurisdiction to try and convict them, because, according to the terms of section 471 of the criminal procedure code, he should have sent the case to another competent magistrate. this, however, is a clearly mistaken view of the.....