Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Chote Lal

Emperor vs Chote Lal

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 08, 1917
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/449046

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 476 - Practice--Order for prosecution for perjury--Court not bound to set out assignments of perjury alleged--Civil Procedure Code (1908), Section 115--Revision--Material irregularity. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13,...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Chote Lal

Legal References

Reported In
(1917)ILR39All367

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 476 - practice--order for prosecution for perjury--court not bound to set out assignments of perjury alleged--civil procedure code (1908), section 115--revision--material irregularity. - 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.....george knox, j.1. while i think that in every case, whether under section 195 or section 476 of the code of criminal procedure, the particular statement when the offence refers to a statement, should be set out so that the accused person should not be taken by surprise, but should clearly know what is the statement which he is required to meet, i am not prepared to hold that the non-specification of the statement is a material irregularity. the law does not, so far as i can find out, require that the statement should be set out, and in the present case there can be no room for doubt what is the statement which the accused person has to meet. i dismiss the application with costs.

Full Judgment

George Knox, J.

1. While I think that in every case, whether under Section 195 or Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the particular statement when the offence refers to a statement, should be set out so that the accused person should not be taken by surprise, but should clearly know what is the statement which he is required to meet, I am not prepared to hold that the non-specification of the statement is a material irregularity. The law does not, so far as I can find out, require that the statement should be set out, and in the present case there can be no room for doubt what is the statement which the accused person has to meet. I dismiss the application with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial