King-emperor Vs. Munna - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 107(2), 192 - security fur keeping the peace--transfer--power of districl magistrale to transfer proceedings instituted by him against a person not within his district. - 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]. - but after consideration, i am of opinion that the intention of the legislature was to limit the jurisdiction in regard to institution of proceedings in cases like the present to a chief presidency or district magistrate;aikman, j.1. in this case one munna tewari was called on to furnish security for keeping the peace. it appears that he is a resident of the gorakhpur district. proceedings were taken against him by the district magistrate of basti under the provisions of section 107, sub-section (2) of the code of criminal procedure, he not being then within the local limits of that magistrate's jurisdiction. after taking proceedings under that section the district magistrate, professing to act under the provisions of section 192 of the code of criminal procedure, transferred the case of which he had thus taken cognizance to a magistrate of the first class subordinate to him, who passed the order for security. in the referring letter of the learned sessions judge the question is raised as to whether the district magistrate, after instituting proceedings under section 107(2), had any power to transfer the case. this question is not altogether free from difficulty. but after consideration, i am of opinion that the intention of the legislature was to limit the jurisdiction in regard to institution of proceedings in cases like the present to a chief presidency or district magistrate; but that when such magistrate has, in the exercise of his discretion, directed institution of proceedings, there is nothing in the law to prevent him from transferring the case to a magistrate otherwise qualified to complete the proceedings. in this case it appears that a previous application for revision had been made to the district magistrate. the learned sessions judge ought therefore, with reference to the provisions of section 435, sub-section (4), to have referred the applicant to this court. as, however, the proceeding has came to my knowledge, i have dealt with it under section 439, sub-section (1) of the code of criminal procedure. for the reasons set forth above i am of opinion that the magistrate of the first class had jurisdiction to make the order which he did, and i direct that the record be returned.