Queen-empress Vs. Ajudhia and anr. - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Respondent||Ajudhia and anr.|
criminal procedure code, section 437 - order for further inquiry--order to the prejudice of an accused person--notice to show cause. - 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 working in schools which..........precedents of this court which lay down that, before any order is made to the prejudice of an accused person, notice should be given to that person to appear and show cause why the order should not be passed. it is quite true, as remarked by the learned sessions judge, that there is no distinct provision to that effect in the code of criminal procedure, but several able and experienced judges of this court have laid down the rule that it is most advisable that such notice should be given. i may refer to the cases of queen-empress v. chotu i.l.r. 9 all. 52, and queen-empress v. mushtaq husen (unreported), criminal revision no. 183 of 1897, decided on the 28th of april 1897. the order made in this case was undoubtedly prejudicial to the accused person, inasmuch as, whatever may be the.....
1. I think it would have bean well if the District Magistrate bad acted on several precedents of this Court which lay down that, before any order is made to the prejudice of an accused person, notice should be given to that person to appear and show cause why the order should not be passed. It is quite true, as remarked by the learned Sessions Judge, that there is no distinct provision to that effect in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but several able and experienced Judges of this Court have laid down the rule that it is most advisable that such notice should be given. I may refer to the cases of Queen-Empress v. Chotu I.L.R. 9 All. 52, and Queen-Empress v. Mushtaq Husen (unreported), Criminal Revision No. 183 of 1897, decided on the 28th of April 1897. The order made in this case was undoubtedly prejudicial to the accused person, inasmuch as, whatever may be the result of the further inquiry, the accused, person is subjected to the worry and nuisance of that further inquiry. I must set aside the order of the District Magistrate directing a re-trial, and I direct that, if he thinks it necessary to take any further action in this case, he should do so after notice to the accused person. I would further point out to the District Magistrate that he was wrong in directing a re-trial of the case. All that the Code empowers him to do is to direct that further inquiry be made. I order accordingly.