Queen-empress Vs. Bala Misra and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/449906
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided OnDec-31-1969
JudgeJohn Edge, Kt., C.J. and; Knox, J.
Reported in(1897)ILR19All311a
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentBala Misra and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. iii of 1867 (gambling act), section 6 - evidence of house being a common gaming house--instruments of gaming--cowries. - 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]. john edge, kt., c.j. and knox, j.1. in this particular case there is evidence that gambling was actually being carried on in the house. our attention has been drawn to the case of queen-empress v. bhawani, weekly notes, 1895, p. 139, in which it was held, on the authority of some previous cases, that 'cowries are not instruments of gaming.' ordinarily speaking, it would be incorrect to describe cowries as instruments of gaming, but if cowries are used in a particular case as a means of gaming, they are in that particular case instruments of gaming, at least in our opinion, within the meaning of that term as it appears in act no. iii of 1867. to explain ourselves a little further, the mere finding of cowries in a house would not raise the presumption that the house was used as a common gaming house, but evidence that cowries were used in a particular house as a means whereby to carry on gaming would bring the house within section 6 of the act. it entirely depends upon the use to which the cowries are put. if they are used for the purposes of gaming, as they frequently are in this country, they are, when they are shown to be so used, as much instruments of gaming as dice. we decline to interfere in this case. the record will be returned.
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.

1. In this particular case there is evidence that gambling was actually being carried on in the house. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Queen-Empress v. Bhawani, Weekly Notes, 1895, p. 139, in which it was held, on the authority of some previous cases, that 'cowries are not instruments of gaming.' Ordinarily speaking, it would be incorrect to describe cowries as instruments of gaming, but if cowries are used in a particular case as a means of gaming, they are in that particular case instruments of gaming, at least in our opinion, within the meaning of that term as it appears in Act No. III of 1867. To explain ourselves a little further, the mere finding of cowries in a house would not raise the presumption that the house was used as a common gaming house, but evidence that cowries were used in a particular house as a means whereby to carry on gaming would bring the house within Section 6 of the Act. It entirely depends upon the use to which the cowries are put. If they are used for the purposes of gaming, as they frequently are in this country, they are, when they are shown to be so used, as much instruments of gaming as dice. We decline to interfere in this case. The record will be returned.