Mohammad HussaIn 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..........the learned sessions judge that it was open to the applicant, even though he had not taken such a plea, to contend that mohammad qasim was a bad character and that the description was made in good faith. in support of it reliance was placed upon mohammad gul v. hazi fazley karim : air1929 cal346 and abdul aziz v. fazal rahman ('28) 15 a.i.r. 1928 rang. 167 in which it was held that, even where the accused had denied having made the statement alleged to be defamatory, he was entitled to adduce evidence to prove that the allegation was within one of the exceptions of the section. it was also pointed out on behalf of mohammad husain that the complainant had admitted in his statement that his house was once searched by the police in connection with a burglary and that hakim ullah, head constable, had stated that he was a history sheeter of the active class and was under police surveillance. this meant that mohammad husain honestly believed that mohammad qasim was a man of bad character and that the description was made in good faith. i agree with the learned sessions judge that, even though the plea was not taken, it was open to mohammad husain to take this stand. i also agree with him that, in the circumstances, the plea of good faith has been amply made out. i, therefore, accept the recommendation, quash the conviction and direct the fine, if paid, to be refunded.