Queen-empress Vs. Lal and ors.

act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), sections 159, 160 - affray--'public place.' - 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 the definition of being recognised is concerned,..........a public thoroughfare. we infer from the evidence that that chabutra was neither a place to which the public had a right of access, nor a place to which the public were used to have access, nor was it a place to which the public were ever permitted to have access, though it adjoined a public road. we must look to section 159 of the indian penal code to see what are the ingredients of the offence of an 'affray.' section 159 runs as follows:3. 'when two or more persons by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an 'affray.' it will be observed that this section does not make fighting 'in public,' which is likely to disturb the public peace, an affray. the fighting disturbing the public peace which is an affray, is fighting which takes place in a 'public place.' no doubt the fighting in this case on the chabutra was fighting in public, because the public could see what was taking place.4. some of the statutes in england make acts penal which are done in public, others make acts penal which are done in a public place, so that in the criminal statute law in england, the distinction is, it will be observed, between doing an act in public and doing an act in a public place. as the chabutra was not a place to which the public had by right or by permission, or by usage or otherwise, access, we must hold that it was not a public place, although any member of the public walking along the street could walk on to it, but in doing so he would be committing a trespass.5. under these circumstances we must set aside the convictions. we acquit the applicants, and order that the fines, if paid, be refunded.