In Re: Gudar Singh

criminal procedure code, sections 110, 117 - security for good behaviour--transfer--criminal procedure code, section 526. - 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..........and no denial made that such words were used, on the part of the magistrate concerned. under these circumstances, there having been an opportunity for the making of an explanation or a denial, i am forced to conclude that the magistrate concerned did threaten gudar singh that he would be dealt with severely and sent to jail if he did not admit his guilt and furnish security. no man charged with any criminal offence or quasi-criminal offence is bound or is under any obligation to make any admission injurious to his own interests. it is needless to say that no judicial officer should attempt to compel any accused person to make any admission detrimental to his interests. as a matter of fact the procedure invariably in england is to inform the accused that he may make a statement, but that any statement he may make may be given in evidence against him. having regard to section 117 of the code of criminal procedure, and to the fact that the magistrate concerned has acted within the meaning of that section, it appears to me that i have got no power to make an order of transfer, and that also is the opinion of other judges of this court whom i have consulted in the matter. what i have power to do is to quash the proceedings, so far as gudar singh is concerned, and i accordingly make an order quashing the proceedings in question so far as gudar singh is concerned. this order will not prevent fresh proceedings being taken against gudar singh by any magistrate other than the magistrate referred to in the affidavit of gudar singh.