Emperor Vs. Kali Charan and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Allahabad |
| Jan-10-1902 |
| John Stanley, C.J. |
| (1902)ILR24All256 |
| Emperor |
| Kali Charan and ors. |
.....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..........have been committed in nepal. the magistrate inquired into the charge without having the certificate of the political agent of nepal as required by section 188 of the code of criminal procedure. this section provides that no charge as to, among others, an offence committed beyond the limits of british india, or by a british subject in the territories of any native prince or chief in india, shall be enquired into in british india unless the political agent, if there be one, for the territory in which the offence is said to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be enquired into in british india. it is admitted that the certificate of the political agent in nepal was not obtained before the commencement of the inquiry by the committing magistrate, although it was subsequently obtained. it appears to me that under the language of this section the obtaining of such certificate is a preliminary requisite to the holding of an inquiry into such a charge. the alleged offence having been committed without the limits of british india, the section forbids any inquiry until the certificate has been obtained. i think, therefore, that the commitment was.....
John Stanley, C.J.
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, submitting the record to the High Court with a recommendation that the commitment of the accused Kali Charan Arakh, Behari Arakh, and Girdhari Arakh, who are British subjects, be quashed under Section 215 of Act No. V of 1898, on the ground that the name was illegal. The offence with which the accused are charged is alleged to have been committed in Nepal. The Magistrate inquired into the charge without having the certificate of the Political Agent of Nepal as required by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that no charge as to, among others, an offence committed beyond the limits of British India, or by a British subject in the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India, shall be enquired into in British India unless the Political Agent, if there be one, for the territory in which the offence is said to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be enquired into in British India. It is admitted that the certificate of the Political Agent in Nepal was not obtained before the commencement of the inquiry by the committing Magistrate, although it was subsequently obtained. It appears to me that under the language of this section the obtaining of such certificate is a preliminary requisite to the holding of an inquiry into such a charge. The alleged offence having been committed without the limits of British India, the section forbids any inquiry until the certificate has been obtained. I think, therefore, that the commitment was illegal, and I declare it to be so and quash the commitment. It will be open, however, to the Magistrate to institute criminal proceedings de novo against the accused in accordance with law.
2. See in this connection the cases of Queen-Empress v. Ram Sundar (1896) I.L.R. 19 All. 109 and Queen-Empress v. Kathaperumal (1889) I.L.R. 13 Mad. 423 in which, however, there was no certificate at all in existence at the time of the commitment being made.--ED.