Daya Ram Vs. State

Daya Ram vs State

Disposition Application dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 07, 1964

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/450291

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/450291
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.S. Mathur, J.
Decided On: Feb 07, 1964
Case Number: Criminal Revn. No. 1648 of 1963
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

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

Civil - court-fee - Section 19 of Court-Fees Act, 1870 - Court's Order restricting liberty of a person - person restrained could move Court without payment of court-fee on application made by him or on his behalf. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 19; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 379

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daya Ram

Advocate Santi Swarup Bhatnagar, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate D.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 19; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 379
Reported In: AIR1967All81; 1967CriLJ151

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..........would fall within the above clause of section 19 of the court fees act.6. in the instant case the applicant, daya ram, was ordered to be released on probation on his guardian executing a bond on the terms and conditions given in form c. bond in form c was, in fact, executed by the guardian, namely, the father of daya ram. the bond has been wrongly filled in but we cannot be unduly guided by this factor. we have to understand the scope of the magistrate's order and not how that order was complied with. condition 4 of form c is that the person released on probation shall not quit the district or area specified in the supervision order without written permission of the probation officer or of any other officer appointed in his place. in other words, the magistrate had directed that during the two years' period of probation the applicant, daya ram, shall not leave the district of meerut without the written permission of the probation officer and this was clearly a restriction on the movement of the applicant which would amount to a restraint.7. the words 'under restraint of a court'mean nothing else than under a court's orderplacing restriction on the liberty of a person.in the instant case, the restriction was imposedby the court, it was a restraint under order of the court and hence of the court, and the person so restrained could move the court without payment of court fee on applications made by him or on his behalf.8. the revision application was thus not chargeable with court fee and can be entertained.9. the finding of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be said to be improper. a person convicted of theft could be released after admonition under section 3 or on probation under section 4 of the u. p. first offenders' probation act. the offence was not of a trivial nature and the lower courts cannot be said to have acted illegally by not releasing the applicant after admonition.10. the revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.S. Mathur, J.

1. Daya Ram has moved this revision application to challenge the order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut dismissing his appeal and thereby maintaining his conviction under Section 379 I. P. C. and also the magistrate's order releasing him (applicant) on probation on his guardian executing a bond of Rs. 500 for a period of 2 years on terms and conditions given in Form C of the Probation Rules. At the same time the applicant was to remain under the supervision of the Probation Officer.

2. The revision application was unstamped and the question that arises for consideration is whether a revision application challenging an order of the above nature required court fee stamp, or in view of Clause (xvii) of Section 19 of the Court Fees Act no court fee was chargeable.

3. Notice of the application was given to the Standing Counsel but under instructions of the State the Deputy Government Advocate put in appearance to oppose the contention of the applicant that the application was exempt from court fee.

4. Under Clause (xvii) of Section 19 of the Court Fees Act no court fee is chargeable on a petition by a prisoner or other person in duress or under restraint of any court or its officers. Daya Ram, applicant, has not been sentenced to imprisonment and is not a prisoner. He cannot be said to be in duress. The only point for consideration is whether the applicant is a person under restraint of a court or its officers.

5. The word 'restraint' cannot be given the same meaning as 'confinement'. A person is 'confined' to one place if he cannot move out of that place. But 'restraint' can be of many kinds. If a person is confined in a building or a place, he is restrained from moving out of that building or place. In other words, whenever a person is wrongfully confined he is at the same; time wrongfully restrained but there can be restraint without confinement. This shall be where limitations have been imposed on the exercise of fundamental right given to a citizen of India to move about freely throughout the country. Whenever any limitation is imposed on the exercise of such right, there is, in the eye of law, a restraint and where the restraint is 'of the court or of its officers' the case would fall within the above clause of Section 19 of the Court Fees Act.

6. In the instant case the applicant, Daya Ram, was ordered to be released on probation on his guardian executing a bond on the terms and conditions given in Form C. Bond in Form C was, in fact, executed by the guardian, namely, the father of Daya Ram. The bond has been wrongly filled in but we cannot be unduly guided by this factor. We have to understand the scope of the magistrate's order and not how that order was complied with. Condition 4 of Form C is that the person released on probation shall not quit the district or area specified in the supervision order without written permission of the Probation Officer or of any other officer appointed in his place. In other words, the magistrate had directed that during the two years' period of probation the applicant, Daya Ram, shall not leave the district of Meerut without the written permission of the Probation Officer and this was clearly a restriction on the movement of the applicant which would amount to a restraint.

7. The words 'under restraint of a court'mean nothing else than under a court's orderplacing restriction on the liberty of a person.in the instant case, the restriction was imposedby the court, it was a restraint under order of the court and hence of the court, and the person so restrained could move the court without payment of court fee on applications made by him or on his behalf.

8. The revision application was thus not chargeable with court fee and can be entertained.

9. The finding of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be said to be improper. A person convicted of theft could be released after admonition under Section 3 or on probation under Section 4 of the U. P. First Offenders' Probation Act. The offence was not of a trivial nature and the lower courts cannot be said to have acted illegally by not releasing the applicant after admonition.

10. The revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.

Same Parties Daya Ram vs State Same Subject Civil Same Judge D.S. Mathur, J. Acts & Sections Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 19; Indian Penal Code (IPC) -...

Civil