Emperor Vs. Mul Chand

.....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..........magistrate referred to the result of a case tried by him in which certain persons were put on their trial on charges under sections 147 and 325 of the indian penal code, as justifying the order passed by him in the present case against mul chand. i do not know whether mul chand was or was not an accused person in the riot case above referred to and if he was or was not convicted in that case. however this may be, though the proceeding in the riot case might justify an order under section 106 of the code of criminal procedure against any person who may have been convicted at that trial, it had nothing to do with the proceeding now before me. the law required the magistrate to hold an inquiry, and even though this requirement would have been substantially complied with by an inquiry such as is prescribed in chapter xx of the code of criminal procedure for the trial of summons cases, still i am unable to find on the record before me anything that shows that an inquiry was held at all. mul chand was apparently asked what cause he had to show why he should not be bound over to keep the peace, and in so far the procedure observed was correct and in accordance with the provisions of section 117, clause 2, read with section 242 of the code of criminal procedure. inasmuch, however, as mul chand did not admit that he was a person likely to commit a breach of the peace, or was otherwise a proper subject for a proceeding under section 107 of the code, the magistrate was too hasty in binding him over without further inquiry, on the strength of his own statement. i must set aside the order complained of and i do so accordingly. if security has been furnished by mul chand in accordance with the order, the security bonds in question are hereby discharged.