Emperor Vs. Kudua Bari

Emperor vs Kudua Bari

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 06, 1929

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/448837

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/448837
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Sep 06, 1929
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

Emperor

Respondent

Kudua Bari

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1930All37; 121Ind.Cas.559

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..........sessions judge has sifted this evidence very carefully and we have not the slightest doubt as to the correctness of his conclusion.4. the object of section 110, criminal p.c., is to offer protection to the members of the public and is not intended to be an engine of oppression. the courts below have got, in all cases coming up either under sections 108, 109 or 110, criminal p. c, to pay strict regard to the question whether the evidence produced is legal evidence in the case on the question of repute. nothing is more easy than to put forward a general charge against a certain person that he is a burglar and thief. the said statement has got to be tested in the light of tangible facts and particulars if there are any such facts to support the story. if there are no such facts, the evidence loses its value.5. the maintenance of a history-sheet may have its uses and a history-sheet may in some cases form good evidence against the accused. the difficulty which we experience in case after case is that it turns out that the history-sheet is no more than an ex parte proceeding and that the accused does not know upon what ground the history-sheet has been opened against him, nor does he know what facts it contains.6. we are in entire agreement with the view of the learned sessions judge and are clearly of opinion that the present application for revision ought not to have been made. the learned government advocate as usual with him has placed the case for the crown in its true and correct perspective. we dismiss this application.

Full Judgment

1. Proceedings have been instituted against Kudua Bari under Section 110, Criminal P. C, on the allegation that he was a habitual burglar and thief and that his character was so desperate and dangerous that it was a menace to the community at large to allow him to remain without being bound over. Mr. Budh Sen,Magistrate, First Class of Mainpuri, under his order dated 22nd January 1929, held that the accused was a habitual thief and burglar but there was no evidence that he was so desperate and dangerous as to justify his being bound over on the second ground. The learned Magistrate ordered the accused to execute a personal bond for Rs. 200 with two sureties each in the same amount to be of good behaviour for a term of three years. The accused was not in a position to furnish security and the matter was placed before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 123(2), Criminal P.C.

2. The judgment of the trial Court is an excellent model of what a judgment should not be. It is summary sketch and most unconvincing. Without caring to weigh the value of the evidence and without trying to consider whether the evidence produced before him was legal evidence of repute or otherwise, he has pronounced judgment in this case.

3. The learned Sessions Judge has taken considerable pains in analysing and dissecting the evidence and in testing their value. The whole evidence in this case may be placed under two groups: (1) evidence which cannot be treated as evidence of repute and is no evidence at all, and (2) evidence which is legally admissible but is not sufficient or reliable. The learned Sessions Judge has sifted this evidence very carefully and we have not the slightest doubt as to the correctness of his conclusion.

4. The object of Section 110, Criminal P.C., is to offer protection to the members of the public and is not intended to be an engine of oppression. The Courts below have got, in all cases coming up either under Sections 108, 109 or 110, Criminal P. C, to pay strict regard to the question whether the evidence produced is legal evidence in the case on the question of repute. Nothing is more easy than to put forward a general charge against a certain person that he is a burglar and thief. The said statement has got to be tested in the light of tangible facts and particulars if there are any such facts to support the story. If there are no such facts, the evidence loses its value.

5. The maintenance of a history-sheet may have its uses and a history-sheet may in some cases form good evidence against the accused. The difficulty which we experience in case after case is that it turns out that the history-sheet is no more than an ex parte proceeding and that the accused does not know upon what ground the history-sheet has been opened against him, nor does he know what facts it contains.

6. We are in entire agreement with the view of the learned Sessions Judge and are clearly of opinion that the present application for revision ought not to have been made. The learned Government Advocate as usual with him has placed the case for the Crown in its true and correct perspective. We dismiss this application.

Same Parties Emperor vs Kudua Bari Same Subject Criminal

Criminal