Zahid HusaIn 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..........of 1936). these are applications in revision against the conviction and sentence of the applicant under rule 12(1)(h), u.p. sugarcane rules. in all the cases the same point of law arises. under rule 9(1) all payments for cane purchased for a sugar factory shall be made at the purchasing centre within 24 hours of demand; provided that in the case of purchases made at such purchasing centres (other than the sugar factory premises) as may be approved by the district magistrate, payments shall be made within seven days of demand. under rule 12(1)(h), a licensed purchasing agent or any person acting on his behalf who fails to make payments for cane purchased for a sugar factory in accordance with the provisions of rule 9(1) becomes liable for punishment with a fine which may extend to rs. 500. the applicant has been charged in all these oases with not making payments for cane purchased by him for sugar factory within the time specified. the prosecution was started on a complaint made by the learned district magistrate. rule 14, clause (1) lays down:no prosecution shall be instituted under these rules except upon complaint made by or under authority from the district magistrate, provided that the district magistrate shall not make a complaint or pass an order for prosecution for an offence under rule 12(h) unless he is satisfied that there is a general complaint of non-payment within the prescribed time.2. it has been urged on behalf of the applicant that no complaint could have been made by the district magistrate unless and until he had satisfied himself that there was a general complaint of non-payment within the prescribed time. rule 14 deals with two matters, namely (1) the cognizance of a complaint by a court and (2) the making of a complaint made by a district magistrate. the word 'shall' in part 2 of the rule deals with the second matter and is only for the guidance of the district magistrates. as soon as a complaint is made by a district magistrate it would be.....