Balkaran Vs. Emperor

.....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.....1. balkaran a chaukidar and musammat chabraji were committed for trial to the court of session, azamgarh, for an offence under section 302-114, indian penal code. the allegations against them were that on the 6th of october 1909, they administered poison to one tahal kahar. in the original case as sent in by the police, there was a third person charged, viz., ram surat. he was tendered a pardon by the committing magistrate and turned king's evidence. the learned officiating sessions judge in a very long judgment, in which he has gone most fully into the evidence, convicted balkaran, but acquitted chabraji. balkaran appeals and his case has been represented to us by learned counsel. we have been taken through the whole evidence. the main evidence against the accused is the evidence of the approver ram surat. we find ourselves in this difficulty that the learned sessions judge believes the evidence of the approver so far as it is against balkaran, but he refuses to believe the approver so far as his evidence goes against chabraji, although it told heavily against her. the evidence of the approver has to be most carefully analyzed and considered. it must be so far above all suspicion that a court has no alternative but to accept and act upon it. but when we find that the approver is swearing positively that both of the accused committed the offence and the court believing him only as against one, there is no alternative but to reject the evidence of the approver altogether. we have no doubt that tahal met his death by poison administered to him. the hands which administered the poison, if we are to believe the approver, were the hands of the approver himself and musammat chabraji. balkaran according to the approver suggested to poison tahal and looked on while the poison was being administered. if we refuse to believe the approver as to the first part of his story, how can we have confidence in him so far as the rest of the story is concerned? there are other.....