Skip to content


Sahdeo Roy and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948All43
AppellantSahdeo Roy and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....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..........in this case is that the two applicants were convicted of an offence under rule 89(6), defence of india rules, and were sentenced to a fine of rs. 50 each or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. the maximum sentence provided for offences under rule 89(6) is six months' rigorous imprisonment or fine. the learned magistrate tried this case summarily and convicting the applicants passed the sentence mentioned above. against this sentence the applicants went in revision to the learned sessions judge who came to the conclusion that the offence was not triable summarilynot only because no application in that behalf had been made by the prosecution but also because offences punishable under rule 89(6) had not been specified by the central government as the offences to which the.....
Judgment:

Sankar Saran, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur submitting the record to this Court with the recommendation that the conviction of Sahdeo Rai and Ram Raj be quashed and their sentences beset aside.

2. The short point in this case is that the two applicants were convicted of an offence under Rule 89(6), Defence of India Rules, and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to one month's rigorous imprisonment. The maximum sentence provided for offences under Rule 89(6) is six months' rigorous imprisonment or fine. The learned Magistrate tried this case summarily and convicting the applicants passed the sentence mentioned above. Against this sentence the applicants went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who came to the conclusion that the offence was not triable summarily

not only because no application in that behalf had been made by the prosecution but also because offences punishable under Rule 89(6) had not been specified by the Central Government as the offences to which the provisions of Rule 130(4) applied so as to make them triable summarily.

3. In the result he came to the conclusion that the conviction and sentences of the applicants were bad in law and could not be maintained. Section 260, Criminal P.C. provides for summary trials and it lays down that offences not punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months could be triable summarily by certain class of Magistrates. This is the law generally with regard to all offences. Rule 130(4), Defence of India Rules, has the following provisions:

Any Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates empowered for the time being to try in a summary way the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 260, Criminal P.C. 1898, may, if such Magistrate or Bench of Magistrates thinks fit, on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution, try a contravention of any such provisions of these rules or orders made thereunder as the Central Government may by notified order specify in this behalf in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 262 to 265 of the said Code.

The short point in this case is whether the words on application in this behalf being made by the prosecution are supplementary to the provisions of Section 260, Criminal P.C. or they are meant to supersede those provisions where they refer to the rules of the Defence of India Rules.

3. There is nothing in the Defence of India Rules to indicate that the provisions of Section 260 have been in any way limited or superseded. As a matter of fact the position in that these rules were enacted during war at a. time of stress when expeditious justice was considered essential and mention is made in the order of Reference of the learned Sessions Judge of two offences, namely, under Rule 81(2) and Rule 90, Defence of India Rules, which provide for much heavier sentences than six months. For offences under Rule 81(2) the maximum punishment is three years and for offence under Rule 90 the maximum sentence is five years. Thus it would appear that what was intended was to add to the provisions of Section 260 the list of offences triable in summary way. Section 260 has 13 clauses and the provisions of Rule 130(4), Defence of India Rules, may be considered as the 14th clause of Section 260.

4. There are no cases on this point. It would appear that an application for prosecution under the provisions of Rule 130(4) has to be made for an offence punishable for a period longer than six months which is contemplated by the said rule.

5. We accordingly reject this reference. Let the record be returned.


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