Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Madho Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All318a
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMadho Singh
Excerpt:
.....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..........instituted on a report sent in by the munsif of fatehabad which was treated as a complaint. this question i answer in the negative; the magistrate was substantially right in his view of the law and is to be congratulated on his handling of the case. the learned sessions judge has referred the matter to this court in order to obtain a ruling on two questions of law. i would not encourage the submission offreferences with this object in view when the sessions court does not really dissent from the actual decision arrived at. in this instance, however, i am prepared to answer the questions as stated in the referring order. to the first question the answer is that the 'servant of the court' should file a complaint in the ordinary way. to both parts of the second question the answer is.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. The real question raised by this reference is whether this Court will interfere in revision with an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, on a prosecution for an [alleged offence under Section 225 B of the Indian Penal Code, irregularly instituted on a report sent in by the Munsif of Fatehabad which was treated as a complaint. This question I answer in the negative; the Magistrate was substantially right in his view of the law and is to be congratulated on his handling of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court in order to obtain a ruling on two questions of law. I would not encourage the submission offreferences with this object in view when the sessions Court does not really dissent from the actual decision arrived at. In this instance, however, I am prepared to answer the questions as stated in the referring order. To the first question the answer is that the 'servant of the Court' should file a complaint in the ordinary way. To both parts of the second question the answer is 'no.' Let the record be returned.


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