Emperor Vs. Abdul Aziz - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act no. viii of 1897 i (reformatory schools act), section 31 - 'youthful offender'--punishment--powers of courts dealing with youthful offenders. - 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]. - every single witness culled for the prosecution gave the boy a good character. in fact, he objected to doing something to the bicycle on the ground that he might be implicated, and he said he was satisfied by the answers he got. it is quite clear that he was not alone in the transaction, and, as i have said, everybody gives him a good character. 50 each for a period of one year to appear and receive judgement when called upon, and in the meantime to be of good behaviour. in the case of an offender under 15, to deliver him to his parents with or without sureties for his future good behaviour. it clearly extends very considerably the provisions of section 562 of the code of criminal procedure, which, although later in date, is a reproduction of earlier legislation. 50, to be responsible for his good behaviour for twelve months.walsh, j.1. this case has been referred to the high court under a misapprehension. a boy named abdul aziz was employed in an electrical workshop. he took a bicycle away belonging to one of the engineers, as he says, at the instance of another person who apparently laid some claim to it, and he, the accused, actually changed some of the parts. it was a, wicked theft, but it was a very clumsy one. it was done in broad daylight and the bicycle remained upon the premises, although changes were made in it. every single witness culled for the prosecution gave the boy a good character. the boy himself protested that he had been used as a tool and that he was not aware that he was engaged in a theft. in fact, he objected to doing something to the bicycle on the ground that he might be implicated, and he said he was satisfied by the answers he got. it would not be fair to form any opinion as to whether this other person in the works was really the guilty party. i therefore assume that this youth of 14 did in fact yield to temptation and commit a deliberate theft such as he has been convicted of. he is fourteen. it is quite clear that he was not alone in the transaction, and, as i have said, everybody gives him a good character. when he was charged, the magistrate, on the 24th of july, referred the case to the district magistrate for orders, pointing out the age of the boy, and the district magistrate sent it back to him to dispose of in accordance with the directions laid down for dealing with juveniles. the magistrate, without making any reference to the law, punished the accused by binding him over in his own recognizance of rs. 50 and two sureties of rs. 50 each for a period of one year to appear and receive judgement when called upon, and in the meantime to be of good behaviour. the district magistrate of jhansi drew attention to the fact that section 562 of the code of criminal procedure did not apply, because the offence under section 411, indian penal code, was not included therein, being punishable by more than two years' imprisonment, and at the instance of the district magistrate the sessions judge has referred it to this court. the explanation, which it is usual for the magistrate responsible for the conviction to submit, simply states that he has nothing to say now it is quite true that section 562 is not applicable to this case, but section 31 of act viii of 1897 read with the definition of 'youthful offender' enables practically any court, at any rate any of the courts concerned in this matter; in the case of an offender under 15, to deliver him to his parents with or without sureties for his future good behaviour. it is to be regretted that the existence of this section should apparently be unknown, although the act has been in existence for 19 years, either to the district magistrate or to the sessions judge in this particular case. it is a little odd that the magistrate himself did not refer to it and possibly he acted under it without being aware of the reference and where it was to be found. it clearly extends very considerably the provisions of section 562 of the code of criminal procedure, which, although later in date, is a reproduction of earlier legislation. the case must go back to the magistrate who tried the case with the following direction: if he already has two sureties of rs. 50 each which are satisfactory to him his order will stand. on the other hand, if nothing has been done, i modify the order by cancelling the provision for a surety by the boy himself, and direct that he be delivered to such person as the magistrate finds to come within the description of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 31 of act no. viii of 1897, on the condition that such person shall execute a bond for the sum of rs. 50 with one additional surety of rs. 50, to be responsible for his good behaviour for twelve months.