Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Soneju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All175
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentSoneju and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 288 - admissibility of evidence--statement of approver made before committing magistrate and afterwards retracted in the court of session. - 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.....arthur strachey, c.j. and knox, j.1. held that there was nothing in the previous rulings of the court which would make inadmissible, under section 288 of the code of criminal procedure, the statement of the approver made before the magistrate.
Judgment:

Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Knox, J.

1. Held that there was nothing in the previous rulings of the Court which would make inadmissible, under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the statement of the approver made before the Magistrate.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //