Emperor Vs. Gutali - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1865 (indian penal code), section 302--murder--poisoning by dhatura--intention--knowledge. - 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]. - he said that he was a thakur of chilikpurwa and that he too bad come to buy an ox.aikman and karamat husain, jj.1. the appellant gutali, alias ajudhia, has been convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced to transportation for life. he has also been convicted of an offence punishable under section 328 of the indian penal code sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. we have read through the whole of the evidence and we see no reason whatever to doubt the prisoner's guilt. on the 29th of may last he attached himself to an old man arjun and his grandson ram nath, who had gone to mahaban to purchase an ox. he was previously unknown to them. he said that he was a thakur of chilikpurwa and that he too bad come to buy an ox. he remained in their company from 2 or 3 gttaris after sunrise until after noon. both arjun and his grandson partook of the food which the accused had procured. the accused pressed them to go to the village karahra where he said he had seen some bullocks for sale. after going a short distance arjun became ill and fell to the ground unconscious. he and his grandson were seen lying on the road that fame evening. the grandson was dead. arjun and the grandson were seen by the hospital assistant, who found in each case the pupils of the eyes dilated. when arjun was found, he was 'seen to be plucking at the ground with his hands. the brain of ram nath was congested and in the opinion of the hospital assistant the congestion was probably caused by poison. although no poison was found by the chemical examiner in the portion of the viscera of ram nath sent to him, we think that there can be little doubt that dkatura had been administered. when arjun came to himself, he found that he had been robbed of his money and his grandson's ear-rings had been taken away.2. the dhotis of both had also been taken away. at that time no trace was found of the person who had been in the company of arjun and the deceased.3. on the 19th of june two more men, girdhari and hallia, were joined by an utter stranger, who persuaded them to partake of food which he gave them. they both became unconscious. before the accused could make off, some residents of nathupura came up and had their suspicions aroused by what they saw. they arrested the accused as he was attempting to make off. he was taken to the police station and sent to the hamirpur jail. there on the 1st of july he was picked out by arjun from amongst a number of under trial prisoners as the man who hadtiff miss 150-151