Emperor Vs. Dulla and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....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..........of the criminal procedure code because on the day fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant did not appear. the complainant filed another complaint charging the same accused with having committed the same offence on the same allegations of fact, before the same magistrate. he referred the point as to whether having regard to section 403 of the criminal procedure code he could try the case again and, having been directed to do so by the sub-divisional officer, issued proceedings against the accused. the learned district magistrate has referred the case to this court recommending that further proceedings be quashed on the ground that under section 403 of the criminal procedure code the accused persons cannot be again tried. this was the view taken by this court in empress v. bhawani prasad weekly notes, 1885 p. 43. the same view was taken in the case of panchu singh v. umor mahomed sheikh (1899) 4 c.w.n. 346 and in the matter of guggilapu paddaya of palakot (1910) i.l.r., 31 mad., 253. following these decisions i accept the reference and direct that the papers be returned.