Indian Legal History- Regulating Act 1773, Interesting Cases.

Introduction

From legal history perspective passing of Regulating Act was very important for various reasons. It introduced independent judiciary to us. It also provided for establishment of supreme court. Court also appeared to be impartial. But was it really impartial ? What are problems for the court ? Are those problems still exist ?

We will try to answers some of above questions with important cases. Many of the cases are delicate and debatable. We will provide the arguments from both the sides.

Trial of Raja Nand Kumar

Raja Nandkumar was a big Zamindar and influential person in Bengal. Long story short, He was kind of friend with Warren Hastings initially. But later on relations between them deteriorated. Nand Kumar accused Warren Hastings of taking Bribe. He wrote letter to council regarding this, also it was provided that Warren Hastings took Bribe from another Lady Munni Begam.

There was internal rivalry among council. Council member seized this opportunity to oust Warren Hasting. They carried out certain proceeding. This is not directly related to trial, but circumstantially related.

What happened after this.

Native Mohan Prasad brought the charges of Forgery against Raja Nand Kumar.
Trial was carried out by Supreme Court.
Raja Nand Kumar was convicted under 1728 Forgery Act.
Raja Nand Kumar was not given a chance to appeal in Privy Council or King-in-Council.
Mercy petition of Raja Nand Kumar was not forwarded by Supreme Court to Crown.
Raja Nand Kumar was executed in 1775.

Many historians argues that Cold blooded Judicial Murder was carried out by Supreme Court. Warren Hastings for avenge along with Supreme court carried out this, some believes.
There are also other historians who believed that Raja Nand Kumar was given a fair trial. We will try to put forth arguments from Both sides and leave it to you to judge.

Arguments that Raja Nand Kumar was given fair trial

It is accused that Chief Justice Impey and Warren Hastings were school friends and chief justice shown partiality to gratify his friend. But Warren Hastings and Impey were not really close friends. They had issues on various aspect, with respect to jurisdiction as it will be clear from Cossijurah case.
Forgery Act of 1728 provided for capital punishment in case of conviction. So court was right in sentencing capital punishment.
In 1765, Radha Charan Mettre was also prosecuted for similar offense. So argument that Forgery Act 1728 not applicable to India doesn't hold.
Some believed that Trial was retaliation by Warren Hastings. But apparently this also looks untrue as charges were brought by Native and not really by Warren Hastings.
As far as the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, it is argued that Judges believed in good faith that they have jurisdiction over Calcutta.
Many contemporary judges also think that trial was fair and impartial.Dr B.N.Pandey expressed the view that trial was not outcome of any political conspiracy.

Arguments that trial was judicial Murder

Raja Nand Kumar was not allowed to appeal against the decision of supreme court in privy council of King in council. Why ?
After conviction, He applied for mercy, but that too didn't forwarded by Supreme Court. Why ?
Crime was committed in 1770. Supreme Court established in 1774. Did supreme court really had a jurisdiction ?
Supreme court carried out witness testimonies which were unknown to natives. Because of this case of defense got weaken.
Raja Nand Kumar was not really subject of crown, now he was servant of Company. Supreme Court's jurisdiction was limited. So it looked like they stretched it for trial.
Another important fact is nobody was tried after Nand Kumar under Forgery Act, 1728.
Many jurist felt that it was a judicial murder which includes Macaulay, Edmund Burke etc.

Conclusion

Of course, from 20 lines of information we cannot conclude. But weight is in the favor that it was judicial murder.

Dr Kailash Rai Put it as below

"We may not conclude that even if the Trial of Raja Nand Kumar was not a judicial murder, there was certainly something equivalent to miscarriage of justice"

There was debate about Hanging of Afzal Guru, terrorist convicted in 2001 parliament attack. Please read about it.

Case of Kamaluddin

Story

Kamaluddin was ostensible owner of the farm. Real owner was Kantu Babu. Revenue of the farm was not paid. So Kamaluddin was detained by Calcutta Revenue Council.

Kamaluddin went to supreme court. Supreme Court issue a writ of Habeas Corpus for release of Kamaluddin.

What was the issue ?

Issue in this case was about jurisdiction.

Company council(Governor in council) felt that they are Diwan of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and they have jurisdiction over revenue officials. So supreme court was not empowered to issue writs in such cases.

Supreme court on other hand was of the opinion that officers are servants of the company, and hence they have legitimate jurisdiction over such official.

Beside the jurisdiction, the custom was arrears of rent first to demanded from real owner, and later from farmer which was not followed by Calcutta Revenue Council. Supreme Court felt it was correct to bring about usage of customs in it's decision.

What do you think ? Who was right ? Court or Council ? If you are law student say it's court. :P

Patna Case

This case happened in Patna, hence it is know as Patna Case.!!

The amount in question was huge. It looks like this is rich people's case.

Story

There are three characters

Shahbaz Beg Khan- A man from Kabul, who came to Patna and amassed a wealth.
Naderah Begam- Wife of Shabaz Beg Khan
Bahadur Beg- Nephew of Shahbaz Beg Khan

Wealthy Man Shabaz Beg died in 1776 leaving behind considerable property.

Naderah Begam,wife wanted property for her on grounds that it was gifted to her, Meher Nama (Dower deed) and Ekarar Name

Nephew Bahadur Beg wanted property for him on the ground that he is adopted son and property belongs to him.

Lower court decision

Bahadur Beg filed a petition in Provincial Council saying that Naderah Begam trying to usurp property based on forged documents.

He also claimed that Naderah Begal took valuables with her.

Provincial Council delegated it's power to Law officers (Kazis and Muftis), to prepare inventory of property and to provide safe custody of property.

These law officers behaved with Naderah harshly because of which she fled with documents.

Muslim Law officers decided to divide property into four parts, give one to Naderah Begam and rest to the nephew.

Provincial Council decided to execute decision by Law officers.

Naherah Begam refused to take one fourth property and filed a petition in Supreme Court.

Supreme Court decision

Supreme court overturn the decision by lower courts.

Court concluded that documents by Begam was not forged

Court came down heavily on the provincial council for neglect of duties. Provincial council delegated their duties to native law officers.

Court found the entire proceedings of Provincial Council illegal, irregular and corrupt.

Problems

First is related to jurisdiction over law officers. Supreme court opined that law officers were servant of company and hence Supreme court have legitimate jurisdiction.

Second, jurisdiction over Bhadur Beg and whole case, as people were resident of Patna. was court right in exercising jurisdiction.

Third, whether court was right to to hold accountable Mufti and Kazi as they were acting in official capacity. Court held that delegation by provincial council was itself illegal, so Mufti and Kazi were not really acting in official capacity

Cossijurah Case

Why this is called Cossijurah Case ? Yes, you guessed it right because it happened in Cossijurah..!!

This was again a case of conflict between Supreme Court and Governor in Council. Conflict was fierce and both side tried to use force for their authority.

Case is very simple. Zamindar of Cossijurah was indebted to one Moneylender. Zamindar was not returning money to Moneylender, so moneylender filed a suite in supreme court to recover money.

Argument of moneylender was, since Zamindar used to collect revenue for company, he is company's servant and Supreme court have jurisdiction over him.

Court issued a warrant of arrest of Zamindar to be released on bail of 3 Lakh Rupees.

Zamindar went in exile.

Governor-in-council supported zamindar and they even brought force against Sheriff when sheriff came to arrest a Zamindar. Sheriff was arrested by Company's force. (LOL)

Concluding Remarks.

Many cases show defects in Judicial administration of company as well as overreach by Supreme court.

There was no clear jurisdiction for executives and supreme court.

Conflict between Governor-in-council and supreme court was norm, and they didn't shared a cordial relations.

In many cases, amount involved was huge. Like in lakhs. It appears the higher judiciary was only for rich people at that time too. (Is it valid till today ?).

You can draw your conclusions from above cases and post those in comments.

Thanks,

Legalfundaa

Search This Blog

Legalfundaa