Empress of India Vs. Mula - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
attempt - fabricating false evidence--act xlv of 1860 (penal code), sections 193, 511. - 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) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private 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 of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - these details were, in accordance with the usual practice, endorsed on the back of the stamp. it is shown by other evidence, which the courts below have accepted as reliable, that mula gave four annas to zabar and requested him to purchase a stamp; with this corroboration the magistrate and the sessions judge have accepted as reliable the statement of zabar that he was induced by mula to personate chattar singh, and to procure the stamp in chatter singhvname.turner, j.1. the petitioner mula is a money-lender in shahjahanpur, with whom chattar singh, thakur, had had dealings, but prior to the date of the occurrence which led to the present charge chattar had discharged his debt to the petitioner in a suit instituted by mula against netha and dhaunkal, chattar gave evidence on behalf of the defendants, and thereupon mula threatened him he would make him pay rs. 50. on the 28th july zabar, a debtor of mula, applied to mathura prasad for a stamp of the value of four annas. he gave his name as chattar singh, thakur, and the name of chattar singh's father, and also chattar singh's address. these details were, in accordance with the usual practice, endorsed on the back of the stamp. as zabar was leaving the stamp-vendor's shop, it occurred to the stamp-vendor again to question him as to his name. he then made a mistake and gave a different name as the name of chattar singh's father. the suspicions of the stamp-vendor being excited, he further questioned zabar, who then stated he had purchased the stamp at the request of mula, who had given him four annas for that purpose. the stamp-vendor very properly took zabar to the police-station and reported what had occurred. it is shown by other evidence, which the courts below have accepted as reliable, that mula gave four annas to zabar and requested him to purchase a stamp; that he left his place of business and accompanied zabar on his way to the stamp-vendor's; that he remained near the stamp-vendor's shop when zabar entered it, and ran away on perceiving that zabar was detained. with this corroboration the magistrate and the sessions judge have accepted as reliable the statement of zabar that he was induced by mula to personate chattar singh, and to procure the stamp in chatter singhvname. the magistrate held that on the facts proved mula was guilty of the offence of attempting to fabricate false evidence for the purpose of using it in judicial proceedings. the sessions judge more correctly held that the facts afforded proof that the fabrication was complete, and that the petitioner was liable to conviction for abetment of the offence alleged rather than of an attempt to commit it, and amended the conviotion accordingly. in this court it is argued that, although the petitioner may have made preparations to commit the offence, yet the offence had not actually been completed, and in support of this contention the petitioner's pleader has referred to queen v. ramsaran chowbey h.c.r. n.w.p. 1872 p. 46, in which case it was held that under similar circumstances the accused could not be convicted of forgery.2. it appears to me that the cases may be distinguished. the endorsement of the stamp-vendor forms no part of the document which it may be assumed it was the intention of the person who procured the endorsement to make on the face of the stamp-paper. the offence of forgery had therefore not proceeded beyond the stage of preparation, but in the case now before the court there had been an actual fabrication: something had been done. it is true that no judicial proceeding had been instituted, but the petitioner's pleader is unable to suggest any other object for which the false endorsement should have been procured. the petitioner had undoubtedly threatened chattar singh that he would make him pay rs. 50. he could not have carried out his threat without the intervention of the court. the object of the endorsement made by the vendor of a stamp is to afford proof of the person to whom it is sold, and in suits brought on documents written on stamp-paper it is the usual course, when the execution of the document is denied, to advert to the endorsement and to the stamp-vendor's memory assisted by the endorsement as evidence of the person to whom the stamp was sold, and therefore as evidence of the probability that the document was made by the person by whom the paper was procured. i do not say that in the case cited the accused should have been discharged. had the point been taken, the court might have held the accused guilty of the offence of which the petitioner has been convicted, but i am of opinion that in the case before the court the evidence for the prosecution warranted the inference that the petitioner procured the false endorsement for the purpose of thereafter using it in a judicial proceeding, and consequently that the conviction is not open to the objection taken to it. i affirm it, and dismiss the application.