Queen-empress Vs. Nannhu

.....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..........of the offence punishable under section 411 of the indian penal code. the evidence appears to have been conclusive that he was guilty of the offence of which he stood charged. he appealed against the conviction to the sessions-judge; and the sessions judge rejected the appeal, this being the order-made: 'rejected summarily under section 421, c.p.c.' by section 421, c.p.c. the. sessions judge meant section 421 of the code of criminal procedure, 1882.2. there is absolutely no doubt that the appeal could not have succeeded. the man was properly convicted and sentenced.3. the only question is one which is raised in the court now and then, viz., whether an order such as that made by the sessions judge is sufficient. it is quite plain from the last paragraph of section 421 of the code of criminal procedure, 1882, that the appellate court is not bound before rejecting under that section a criminal appeal to send (or the record. without deciding that when a court acts under the first paragraph of section 421 of the code of criminal procedure, 1982 it is necessary for the court to express its views of the case, beyond stating that it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, we think it. advisable for courts of session and magistrates when acting as appellate courts to state shortly in their order the reason or reasons which influence them in coming to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for interfering: in the case. we do not say that it is necessary to write a judgment in the form prescribed by section 367 of the code of criminal procedure, 1882, or, anything like it. we only say that we think it is advisable for those courts, whose orders may be challenged by application in revision to record something which may be a guide for the court acting in revision.4. we dismiss this application.