Raghubir Singh 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..........arrived in saharanpur ho left the station to bathe in a river and while he was there he was searched and found to be in possession of the coins to which we have referred. the main question to be considered is whether the district magistrate was entitled to make the order which the applicant undoubtedly contravened. the district magistrate presumably acted under the provisions of rule 81(2)(a), defence of india rules. it is admitted that the district magistrate had power to pass orders under this rule. the rule gives a power to make an order providing for the keeping of articles or things of any description whatsoever. the power is very wide and the district magistrate was apparently under the impression that he could treat coins as articles and make an order regulating the keeping of them. there is, however, a special provision for coins in rule 90, defence of india rules and we are of the opinion that the special provision must override the general provision in rule 81. in one sense a coin may be treated as an article or a commodity but we think, in view of the special provisions in rule 90, that coins were not intended to be included within the meaning of articles or things referred to in rule 81. we think the framers of the rules had in their minds a distinction between commodities and money, as such. we hold that the order passed by the district magistrate was beyond his, powers and that applicant was, therefore, not guilty of the offence with which he was charged. we consequently set aside his conviction and acquit him. we also set aside the sentence of fine passed by the learned additional sessions judge and direct that the fine or any part of it which may have been paid shall be refunded to the applicant.