Jhallar Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal - trespass - sections 441 and 456 of indian penal code, 1860 - accused entered in the house of complainant at night - on the invitation of the complainant's wife - intention to commit offence under section 497 - held, convicted under section 456 only. - 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]. orderr. singh, j.1. this is an application in revision by one jhallar who was convicted under section 456. penal code and was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 50/-by a magistrate and whose appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the sessions judge of rae bareli. 2. it appears that jhallar had entered the house of one ram nath on the night between17th and 18th january, 1952 when an alarm was raised & jhallar was apprehended. he was then taken to the police station and a report was lodged. the defence of jhailar was that he had gone to the house on the invitation of one srimati jaggi with whom he had illegitimate intimacy and that ram nath, who seems to have been lying in wait, caught hold of him while he had come out of the house. the story that the applicant had presumably some intimacy with srimati jaggi has been accepted by the lower courts but the applicant was convicted on the ground that he had entered the house of ram nath with a view to commit an offence. 3. it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant could not be said to have entered the house of ram nath with the intent of causing annoyance to him inasmuch as he had gone to the house either on the invitation of srimati jaggi or only to meet her of his own accord. in either case it could not be the intention of the applicant to annoy the owner or the possessor of the house. section 441 which defines a criminal trespass indicates that a person is said to commit criminal trespass if he enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the intent (1) to commit an offence, or (2) to intimidate) insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. evidently the applicant had not entered the house of ram nath with any deliberate intention of annoying anybody. srimati jaggi was, however, a married woman and it is in evidence that she had her husband living. consequently intercourse with such a lady would evidently be an offence under section 497, penal code and on the own showing of the applicant he had entered the house of ram nath, it has been held in a full bench ruling of the lahore high court reported in -- 'mohammad yar v. emperor', air 1938 lah 514 (a) that in the circumstance mentioned above a person who entered the house would be held to be guilty of criminal trespass. i agree with the view expressed above. the applicant was, therefore, rightly found guilty under section 456, penal code by the courts below. 4. the application for revision is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

R. Singh, J.

1. This is an application in revision by one Jhallar who was convicted under Section 456. Penal Code and was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-by a Magistrate and whose appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli.

2. It appears that Jhallar had entered the house of one Ram Nath on the night between17th and 18th January, 1952 when an alarm was raised & Jhallar was apprehended. He was then taken to the police station and a report was lodged. The defence of Jhailar was that he had gone to the house on the invitation of one Srimati Jaggi with whom he had illegitimate intimacy and that Ram Nath, who seems to have been lying in wait, caught hold of him while he had come out of the house. The story that the applicant had presumably some intimacy with Srimati Jaggi has been accepted by the lower Courts but the applicant was convicted on the ground that he had entered the house of Ram Nath with a view to commit an offence.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant could not be said to have entered the house of Ram Nath with the intent of causing annoyance to him inasmuch as he had gone to the house either on the invitation of Srimati Jaggi or only to meet her of his own accord. In either case it could not be the intention of the applicant to annoy the owner or the possessor of the house. Section 441 which defines a criminal trespass indicates that a person is said to commit criminal trespass if he enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the intent (1) to commit an offence, or (2) to intimidate) insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. Evidently the applicant had not entered the house of Ram Nath with any deliberate intention of annoying anybody. Srimati Jaggi was, however, a married woman and it is in evidence that she had her husband living. Consequently intercourse with such a lady would evidently be an offence under Section 497, Penal Code and on the own showing of the applicant he had entered the house of Ram Nath, It has been held in a Full Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court reported in -- 'Mohammad Yar v. Emperor', AIR 1938 Lah 514 (A) that in the circumstance mentioned above a person who entered the house would be held to be guilty of criminal trespass. I agree with the view expressed above. The applicant was, therefore, rightly found guilty under Section 456, Penal Code by the Courts below.

4. The application for revision is dismissed.