act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 218 - offence--public servant framing an incorrect record to save himself from legal punishment. - 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.....john edge, kt., c.j. and blair, j.1. the simple question in this case is whether a public servant who does that which, if done to save another from legal punishment, would bring the public servant within section 218 of the indian penal code has committed the offence punishable under that section if the person whom he intends to save from legal punishment is himself. in our opinion there is no reason why it should be an offence for a public servant to make a false record in order to save another person from legal punishment, and why it should not be an offence for him to make a false record to save himself from legal punishment. if the legislature had intended that this section should only apply when the intention was to save some person other than the public servant, it would have been easy to insert the word 'other' between the words 'any' and 'person.' it appears to us that the appellant, who was a public servant, did not cease to be a person when he made a false entry in his diary for the purpose of saving himself from punishment. two authorities have been cited to us in this court. one is that of queen-empress v. gauri shankar i.l.r. 6 all. 42, and the other that of queen-empress v. girdhari lal i.l.r. 8 all. 653. in our opinion the appellant committed the offence under section 218 of the indian penal code. we dismiss his appeal.