Emperor Vs. Sardar 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..........he intended to confirm the conviction of wazira and sardara under section 353 of the indian penal code on account of their attack on the police and the rescue of daulatia and to convict all six appellants under section 353 of the indian penal code, instead of under sections 147/225, on account of their conduct before daulatia was arrested. on the facts found it seems to me that all six were rightly convicted under section 353 of the indian penal code. it is contended that the order of the sessions judge convicting under section 353 of the indian penal code those whom the magistrate had declined to convict of that offence was illegal as it was not open to the sessions judge to convert an acquittal into a conviction. this point was considered in the case of queen-empress v. jabanulla (1896) i.l.r. 23 calc. 975. the high court held that an appellate court could, under section 423 of the code of criminal procedure, in an appeal from a conviction under one of several sections of the indian penal code mentioned in the charge-sheet, alter the finding of the lower court and find the appellant guilty of an offence of which he had boon acquitted by that court. this ruling is in accordance with the common practice of these provinces. accused persons are often charged with having committed several offences, and the magistrate convicts them of one offence only. on appeal the sessions court takes a different view and convicts the accused of one of the offences of which the magistrate has declined to convict the accused. very little violence was used in this case. i think i may properly reduce the sentences passed on the applicants to two months' rigorous imprisonment each. the sentences upon wazira and sardara will be concurrent. in other respects i dismiss this application. the applicants must surrender to their bail to undergo the remaining portion of their sentences.