Emperor Vs. Ghasite

.....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.....piggott, j.1. i think there is good deal to be said for the view taken of this case by the district magistrate, but i am inclined to doubt whether it is worth this court's while to interfere. the district magistrate seems to think that this court in revision can set aside an order under section 562 of the code of criminal procedure and of its own authority substitute for that order a sentence of whipping or of imprisonment. under sections 439/423 of the code of criminal procedure, this court certainly could not take the action suggested. the provisions of section 439 itself empower the high court in revision to enhance a sentence, but it is clear that no sentence has been passed in the present case. the court instead of sentencing the accused has ordered him to enter into a bond to appear and receive sentence when called upon. the point of law thus taken may appear a technical one, but it is closely connected with another question of considerable importance, viz., the question whether an appeal lies against an order under section 562 of the code of criminal procedure. i have recently followed the punjab chief court in holding that an appeal does lie, and that question necessarily depends upon the soundness of the contention that in a case like the present no sentence has been passed. it follows, therefore, that if this court interferes at all in this matter it can only order the case to be re-tried. under all the circumstances of the case i do not think it worth while to take this step. let the record be returned.