Ram Singh Vs. Mathura and ors.

.....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.....george knox, j.1. this case has been rightly reported. i find that the learned magistrate in his judgment says:--'the case is utterly false and i acquit all the accused.' section 250 of the code of criminal procedure was not intended to meet the case of false accusations. it was meant to meet with frivolous and vexatious accusations. where a person complains that he was kept in confinement for three days, he is going a long step beyond making a frivolous or vexatious accusation. over and above this, the words contained in section 250 are clear. if a magistrate wishes to direct payment of compensation in frivolous cases, he is to give the direction by his order of discharge or acquittal. in other words, before pronouncing the order of discharge or acquittal, he has to call upon complainant and to record and consider any objections that the complainant may make. after having done so, and not before, should he place on record or, at any rate, only then, pronounce his order of discharge or acquittal. i set aside the order of payment of rs. 30 as compensation and direct that it be returned to bam singh.