Ayub Ali Vs. Emperor

Ayub Ali vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 28, 1937

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/450155

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/450155
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Jan 28, 1937
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- 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) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ayub Ali

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1937All423

Excerpt

.....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..........1936 have been heard and disposed of with this criminal revision (no. 988 of 1936). all these applications are in revision against conviction under rule 12(1) for breach of rule 9(4) and against the sentence under rule 12(5) of the u.p. sugarcane rules, 1934. rule 9(4) lays down:no deduction shall be made from the weight of the case on the ground that the cane is improperly stripped or on any other ground whatever:provided that where cane is brought bound in bundles and weighed in bundles, a deduction not exceeding half a seer per full maund of cane may be made on account of the weight of the binding materials.2. this deduction of half a seer per maund is called 'karda'. the net weight of cane in these oases was (1) 11 maunds 20 seers; (2) 13 maunds 30 seers and (3) 13 maunds 30 seers. the applicant was entitled to a deduction of 5 1/2 seers from 11 maunds 20 seers and of 6 1/2 seers from 13 maunds 30 seers. the applicant was liable for payment for 11 maunds 14 1/2 seers in one case and for 13 maunds and 23 1/2 seers in the other two cases. the applicant actually paid to the sugarcane owner for 11 maunds 10 seers instead of 11 maunds 14 1/2 seers and for 13 maunds 20 seers in. stead of 13 maunds 23 1/2 seers in each of the two remaining cases. the applicant has been convicted for the breach of rule 9(4) of the u.p. sugarcane rules, 1934, and has been sentenced to a fine of rs. 15 in each case under rule 12(5) which lays down:a breach of any other rule not otherwise provided for shall be punishable with fine not exceeding rs. 300.3. the applicant relies on rule 8(2) and contends that he was entitled to the deductions which he had made. rule 8(2) lays down:all weighments of sugarcane shall be made by the maund of 82 2/7 lb. and multiples thereof. where weighment is mide on a weighbridge the weight shall be recorded to the nearest quarter mauad. where weighment is made on a beam scale the actual weight shall be recorded.4. his contention is that he was entitled to.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ganga Nath, J.

1. Criminal Revisions Nos. 989 and 990 of 1936 have been heard and disposed of with this Criminal Revision (No. 988 of 1936). All these applications are in revision against conviction under Rule 12(1) for breach of Rule 9(4) and against the sentence under Rule 12(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Rules, 1934. Rule 9(4) lays down:

No deduction shall be made from the weight of the case on the ground that the cane is improperly stripped or on any other ground whatever:

Provided that where cane is brought bound in bundles and weighed in bundles, a deduction not exceeding half a seer per full maund of cane may be made on account of the weight of the binding materials.

2. This deduction of half a seer per maund is called 'karda'. The net weight of cane in these oases was (1) 11 maunds 20 seers; (2) 13 maunds 30 seers and (3) 13 maunds 30 seers. The applicant was entitled to a deduction of 5 1/2 seers from 11 maunds 20 seers and of 6 1/2 seers from 13 maunds 30 seers. The applicant was liable for payment for 11 maunds 14 1/2 seers in one case and for 13 maunds and 23 1/2 seers in the other two cases. The applicant actually paid to the sugarcane owner for 11 maunds 10 seers instead of 11 maunds 14 1/2 seers and for 13 maunds 20 seers in. stead of 13 maunds 23 1/2 seers in each of the two remaining cases. The applicant has been convicted for the breach of Rule 9(4) of the U.P. Sugarcane Rules, 1934, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15 in each case under Rule 12(5) which lays down:

A breach of any other rule not otherwise provided for shall be punishable with fine not exceeding Rs. 300.

3. The applicant relies on Rule 8(2) and contends that he was entitled to the deductions which he had made. Rule 8(2) lays down:

All weighments of sugarcane shall be made by the maund of 82 2/7 lb. and multiples thereof. Where weighment is mide on a weighbridge the weight shall be recorded to the nearest quarter mauad. Where weighment is made on a beam scale the actual weight shall be recorded.

4. His contention is that he was entitled to an allowance for fractions at the time of weighment and again at the time of payment after having made deductions for karda. Rule 8(2) relates only to weighments; it has nothing to do with the rules for payment with which Rule 9 deals. The weight has to be ascertained only for the purpose of payment. After having once ascertained the weight in accordance with the rules given in Rule 8 there remains no occasion or justification for making again any allowance for any fraction. If the purchaser were entitled to any such allowance, there should have been some mention of it in Rule 9(4) which provides for an allowance for half a seer per full maund in case the cane is brought bound in bundles and weighed in bundles. As has been mentioned in Rule 8(2) where weighment is made on a beam scale the actual weight has to be taken into account. In the case of weighment by beam scale the purchaser is not entitled to any allowance whatsoever for any fraction, but according to the contention of the applicant he would be entitled to an allowance for fractions after deducting the karda. from the actual weight : I therefore agree with the learned Judge and find that the applicant has committed breach of the rule. There is no force in the application. It is therefore ordered that these applications be rejected and the conviction and sentence be confirmed.

Same Parties Ayub Ali vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal

Criminal