In Re: Kalyan Singh - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Appellant||In Re: Kalyan Singh|
criminal procedure code, section 253 - discharge--evidence--duty of magistrate in dealing with the evidence produced in a case triable by a 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 the employees..........that the magistrate who refused to commit did not exercise a judicial discretion when he found that there were not sufficient grounds for commitment. the petition is.....
1. This is a petition for revision. I am invited to lay down the general proposition that a Magistrate having before him formally and categorically evidence which discloses a case for trial in some Court to which such Magistrate might in his discretion commit, is bound so to commit, and that he is wrong in point of law in exercising a discretion and considering the sufficiency of the evidence. The proposition is dangerously large. It is not the practice of Magistrates within the range of my experience, nor I have heard the law so laid down in England. That is the only question I have to answer, for it is not in this case suggested that the Magistrate who refused to commit did not exercise a judicial discretion when he found that there were not sufficient grounds for commitment. The petition is dismissed.