ishaq and ors. Vs. Emperor

.....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.....orderganga nath, j.1. this is an application in revision by ishaq ahmad, anis, shamouddin, ibrabim, mt. dhaneshri, mt. tileshari, rahmat, masood, phul mohammad and mahbub against the order of the learned sessions judge of ghazipur setting aside the order of discharge of the learned committing magistrate and ordering the accused to be committed to the court of session for trial. the accused have been charged under sections 363, 366 and 368, i.p.c. the learned committing magistrate has written a very long judgment discussing the evidence before him. he has criticized the evidence for the prosecution. the learned sessions judge considered the same evidence and came to the conclusion that it was a case which ought to have been committed to the court of session. there can be no doubt that magistrate cannot usurp the functions of a sessions court. there are three classes of cases, namely,(1) cases where the evidence is prima facie so clear that nobody can entertain any doubt that the matter ought to be tried;(2) cases where the evidence is so palpably tainted, absurd, incredible and, as it has been described on occasions, groundless that nobody could doubt that it would be a hardship and unjust to an accused person to allow the matter to go any further and(3) cases which of course provide debatable ground, where the evidence is conflicting and lays itself open to suspicion but where on the other hand it may be true and may commend itself to certain tribunals. in the last mentioned cases, the magistrate, even though he may have reason to doubt whether if he were trying the case he would convict, has no right to substitute his judgment for the final judgment of the court indicated by law the trial and to arrive at a final decision dismissing the case in the way in which he would do if he were the trial court. even if the evidence is balanced however unevenly in his opinion then it is a matter which has to be tried and it is his duty to commit it for trial. the learned.....