Kripa Shankar Vs. Emperor

Kripa Shankar vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided May 21, 1947

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/448743

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/448743
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: May 21, 1947
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- 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) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kripa Shankar

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1948All26

Excerpt

.....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..........that:section 498, criminal p.c. gives is unfettered discretion to the high court or the court of session to admit an accused person to bail. it is a mistake to imagine that section 498 is controlled by the limitations of section 497, except when there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed the offence, or there are reasonable grounds for believing that ho is not guilty, in which cases it becomes a duty to release him. magistrates can proceed under section 497 only and their discretion is regulated by the provisions of that section; but section 498 confers upon a sessions judge or the high court wide powers to grant bail which are not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding section. that discretion is unfettered but of course it cannot be exercised arbitrarily but must be exercised judicially. there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing such discretion. the only principle that is established is that there should be a judicial exercise of that discretion. it is not any one single circumstance which necessarily concludes the decision, but it is the cumulative effect of all the combined circumstances that must weigh with the court. the considerations are too numerous to be classified or catalogued exhaustively.that decision being the decision of a full bench is binding on this court and must be followed in preference to the view of the learned single judge.5. i, therefore, propose to direct that the papers may be sent back to the learned sessions judge to consider the application on the merits, and i order accordingly. the affidavits filed in this court may also be sent to the learned sessions judge.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Malik, J.

1. This is an application for bail under Secion 498, Criminal P.C.

2. The cse is pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad and the accused has been committed to that Court to stand his trial under Section 326 read with Section 114, Penal Code The learned Sessions Judge before whom tire application was made passed an order that in view of the observations made by this Court in Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946, he could not grant bail to the accused.

3. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the observations made in Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946 are opposed to the decision of the Pull Bench in K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor : AIR1931 All504 . This Pull Bench decision was not cited before the learned single Judge who decided Emperor v. Deonath Cri. Misc. Case No. 1298 of 1946. The learned Single Judge has held that:

Section 498, Criminal P.C. does not by any means govern or limit the provisions of Section 497 which must apply to a case of bail being granted to a person charged with a non-bailable offence.

Relying on Sub-section (3) of Section 497 of the Code, the learned single Judge has held that the learned Sessions Judge was bound to give 'reasons for his view that the opposite parties, who were charged with an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, should be released on bail.'

4. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor : AIR1931 All504 this Court has pointed out that:

Section 498, Criminal P.C. gives is unfettered discretion to the High Court or the Court of Session to admit an accused person to bail. It is a mistake to imagine that Section 498 is controlled by the limitations of Section 497, except when there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed the offence, or there are reasonable grounds for believing that ho is not guilty, in which cases it becomes a duty to release him. Magistrates can proceed under Section 497 only and their discretion is regulated by the provisions of that section; but Section 498 confers upon a Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which are not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding section. That discretion is unfettered but of course it cannot be exercised arbitrarily but must be exercised judicially. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing such discretion. The only principle that is established is that there should be a judicial exercise of that discretion. It is not any one single circumstance which necessarily concludes the decision, but it is the cumulative effect of all the combined circumstances that must weigh with the Court. The considerations are too numerous to be classified or catalogued exhaustively.

That decision being the decision of a Full Bench is binding on this Court and must be followed in preference to the view of the learned single Judge.

5. I, therefore, propose to direct that the papers may be sent back to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the application on the merits, and I order accordingly. The affidavits filed in this Court may also be sent to the learned Sessions Judge.

Same Parties Kripa Shankar vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal

Criminal