Queen-empress Vs. Sinha - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....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..........the learned junior government pleader to the effect that as, since the application was filed, the effect of the finding of the magistrate has become complete, this court cannot interfere with that finding. i am unable to admit the force of this contention. i can find nothing in the terms of the law to prevent this court from interfering with a conviction, even though, in consequence of the expiry of the sentence, it may not be possible to interfere with the latter. and cases in which such interference should not be summarily refused may easily be supposed, as, for instance, where a man's status is altered by his conviction, (as in convictions under chapter xii or xvii of the indian penal code, or under the common gambling act), or where, as hero, the convict's prospect of future.....