While refusing to do proceedings with the principal, a court session in Nagpur decided that being the head of the institution, he had any responsibility that occurred in the school spot between teachers and students.
Additional Judge P y Ladekar session maintained charges framed by the police against Suyash Convent Principal Anurag Pandey under the 75 Juvenile Justice Law (JJ) for the alleged attack and bad behavior by his teacher against female students.
“Disisik, the defendant is the principal.
He, together with the body managing, hiring a teacher who was accused of being first to teach dance.
Being the principal / principal, he certainly has control of students and teachers,” said the judge.
Courts heard Pandey’s application to get out of violations registered in Section 324 (voluntarily causing dangerous injuries with harmful weapons practice, injuring them on November 30, 2011.
The complaint was submitted by the Father of STD VII Girl.
After the police submitted a sheet of accusations against the two defendants, Pandey Move the application to get out of crime before the first judge judge (JMFC) through Tejas Deshpande’s advice.
While rejecting his request, JMFC holds that even though he was not present when the attack took place, becoming the principal / principal, he was equally responsible for violations Agity of minors with the principal and complain t Eradading the alleged bad behavior teacher.
But Pandey failed to take action.
Pandey’s advisor argued that JMFC had made a legal mistake 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 it, leaving or ignoring the girls.
His involvement in the crime will not advance from the statement of the witnesses,” he said, stressing canceling 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 Facie, there is a reasonable reason to continue the revision of the violation under the JJ Law.
The judge’s order cannot be blamed with,” said the Judge.