Nagpur: While refusing to restrict with the principal, the session court here ruled that being the head of the institution, he had any responsibility that occurred in the school building and students.
Additional Judge Py Ladekar session maintained accusations framed by the police against Suyash Convent Principal Anurag Pandey under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Law for alleged attacks and bad behavior by one of his women’s teachers.
“The defendant accused of being the principal of the school.
He is a person with the body of managing, who has employed a teacher who was accused of the first to teach the dance to the students.
Being the principal / principal, of course he has control of not only the students , but also the teacher, “the judge was held.
The court listens to Pandey’s application to exit registered violations based on section 324 (voluntarily causing dangerous wounds with hazardous weapons) IPC and JJ acted by the Hudeshwar police station against the first defendant Manish Raut, a dance teacher from his school, who was allegedly hit by little girls With iron stems during training, causing them to be injured on November 30, 2011.
The complaint was submitted by a father of a seventh standard girl.
After the police submitted a sheet of accusations against accusations, Pandey moved the application to get out of evil before Judicial Judge Class One (JMFC) through the advice of Tejas Deshpande.
However, while rejecting his request, JMFC held that even though he was not present at the place when the attack on the daughter occurred, became the principal / principal, he was both responsible for violations of minors.
The 38-year-old principal then challenged this verdict in the session court by submitting a revised application through Deshpande.
It was strongly opposed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor Pankaj Tapase which showed that four to five days before November 30, 2011, the parents who were harmed had met with the principal and filed a complaint against the dance teacher accused of doing bad behavior.
However, Pandey failed to take any action against the expression.
Pandey’s advisor argued that JMFC had made a big mistake of the law and the evidence submitted by the police was not enough to see the case against the defendant.
Deshpande said even JJ’s actions were not called because the principal did not have the actual charges of students.
“He hasn’t attacked, leaving or ignoring the girls.
His involvement in crime is not advancing from the statement of the witnesses,” he said, emphasizing to cancel the JMFC command.
While some allowed Pandey applications, Ladekar issued it from the part 324 IPC, but maintained the process of it under section 75 of the JJ Law.
“Prima facies have reasonable reasons to continue the revisionists for violations under the JJ Law.
So far, orders passed by the judge cannot be blamed with,” said the judge.
What the court said * The principal together with managing the body employed was first accused of teaching dances * becoming a school principal / principal, he experienced control of students & teachers * There was a reasonable reason to continue to the principal under the judge could not be blamed with
If the teacher’s attack teacher, the principal is too responsible: court
