Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bombay 1684-1690
Bombay 2nd Statge Establishment of Admiralty Court(1684) having Jurisdiction on Civil, Criminal and Maritime matters Appointment of Dr. John St. John as Advocate General Conflict in between The Governor Child and Dr. John on various issues Reduction of Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court to maritime matters only Appointment of Vaux as a Judge in a new Court to look into Civil and Criminal matters Conflict in Jurisdictional issue between the Courts of Vaux and Dr. John Conflict between Executive and Judiciary
Bombay 1684-1690
Dismissal of Dr. John Issues Overlapping powers of Executive & Judiciary Attitude problem of Legal professionals Intolerance of Judicial independence Judge made laws exceeding English laws n interpreting differently End of Bombay Judicial System by attack of Moghul Admiral Siddi Yakub in 1690-1718 as dark period
Bombay 1718-1726
3rd Stage Establishment of a new Judicial system after 30 years in 1718 Appointment of a Chief Justice and 9 other Judges Five British n 4 India Judges from Hindu, Muslim, Portuguese Christian + Parsis, one each. Jurisdiction to judge all cases of Civil, Criminal, Military and Testamentary Work as Registrar of immovable Property The Court had wide powers to execute its decrees
Bombay 1718-1726
No equal status to Indian Judges Due regard to caste custom and local traditions along with English laws Appeal to Governor and Council Inexpensive and quick award based on common sense Stringent punishment to criminal and Debtors Rama Kamatis Case
Calcutta 1690-1726
The Company secured Zamindari of 3 adjacent villages ,Sutanti, Calcutta and Govindpur@ 1195 Rs. P.a. from Prince Azmaish shah( Grand Son of Aurangzeb, then Subedar of Bangal) In 1668 a fortified factory was constructed as Fort William On the bank of river Hugli(Sutanti)a few Englishmen landed on 24th Aug.1690,under the leadership of James Charnock. Acquisition of zamindari was a significant event for Company through it company secured a legal and constitutional status within Moghul administrative machinery. Company became entitled to exercise all those functions and powers within the zamindari territory.
Calcutta 1690-1726
Dec.1699 Calcutta became Presidency. A Governor(President) and a Council was appointed to administer the settlement. English Judicial System in Calcutta The zamindari functions of the Company, within the settlement of Calcutta, were entrusted to an English Officer called Collector, who used to be a member of Governors Council Collector had judicial powers in all Civil, Criminal and Revenue cases pertaining to the Indian inhabitants
Calcutta 1690-1726
Besides this a parallel Court of Zamindar was also in existence and dealing with civil cases of local Indian people according to customs and usage and discretion for which appeals lay to the Governor and Council. Evaluation Parallel justice administration system of Nawab & Company and approval before capital punishment Lack of impartial administration of justice Concentration of extensive Power in the hands of Collector
Charter of 1726
The Charter of 1726 was a big advancement of Companys establishment in India which was requested to fetch more powers from Crown. King George I issued a fresh charter to Company where all three Presidency were brought under a uniform Judicial system. Establishment of Civil and Criminal Courts in each Presidency deriving authority from the Crown Designated as Royal Courts these Courts were equivalent to English Courts having formal, regular and definite base An appeal from India could be made directly to Privy Council
Charter of 1726
The Charter established a bridge in British and Indian legal system It became a channel through which British Crown could directly apply their legal interpretations and applications Where ever Indian laws were absent British laws were guiding them to find the way
Charter of 1726
Provisions 1. Establishment of separate Corporation in each Presidency consisting a Mayor and 9 Aldermen. The First Mayor is appointed by the Crown for one year after retirement the Mayor remains an Alderman only. Two Alderman are appointed from the local jagirdar and rest are natural born subjects of the company. Aldermen is appointed for life but could be removed by the Governor and Council subject to appeal to King-in-Council in England
Charter of 1726
2. Judicial System In each Presidency a Mayors Court was established consisting a Mayor and two senior Aldermen The Court had jurisdiction only to the Civil Matters along with Testamentary and Court of Record for contempt. An appeal could be made to the King-in-Council Sheriff He was responsible for implementation of Mayors Courts directions including summons, seizure of property ,execution of warrant etc, having jurisdiction over the entire Presidency and 10 miles around. Appointed by Governor for one year duration
Charter of 1726
Criminal Jurisdiction Vested with the Governor and 5 senior members of the Council each was a Justice of the Peace. Powers to arrest like police and punish for petty offences Grand and Petty jury to sit 4 times in one year and to look into serious crimes All technical forms and procedures and manners of English law were introduced Three justices of the Peace were collectively forming Court of Record(To hear and Determine)
Charter of 1726
Effects The post charter period was not smooth arising conflicts between Governor and The Mayors Court Neither Law nor Justice was accorded Mayors Court became autonomous and the Governor sought to interfere with the functioning of the Court. No clarity on personal laws and religious matters Conflict in between Court and The Council
Patna Case
Succession by a Muslim widow Shahbaz beg Khan(died 1776),Bahadur Beg(Nephew) and Nadirah Begum(Widow) Issues A gift deed was executed in favor of Nadirah by Shahbaz Bahadur Beg claimed the property on the basis of adopted son so filed a case against Begum in Patna Provincial Council. The case was delegated for dealing to Mufti and Kazi for (A) Making an inventory of the entire property (B) Sealing it to maintain status quo
Patna Case
All proceeding in Patna Council were ex parte without notice to Begum. No witness was examined on oath and some could not present themselves in person Begums plea of gift alleged as forged Outcome 1. Begums house was sealed and only one room was left open 2. She was given only 1/4th part of her deceased husband and rest 3/4th was handed over to Bahadur Beg on behalf of his father(Shahbazs Brother)..as per Hanafi Muslim School She approached to Supreme Court and filed an action against Bahadur Beg, Mufti and the Kazi for assault, false imprisonment, breaking and entering her house etc and asked for damages of 6 lakh
Patna Case
Supreme Court issued a writ of Capias, for arrestment of Kazi, Mufti and Bahadur Beg. They were brought to Calcutta and asked to furnish a bail of Rs 4,00,000,on failing put in the prison. Issues 1. Whether the Law officers could be empowered by the Council, which was also a Court, by delegation of its powers to perform judicial actions by executives and to decide the questions of fact and law. 2. Whether the Supreme Court at Calcutta was having jurisdiction over native Indian people
Patna Case
The Supreme Court held that the procedure and practice adopted by law officers was illegal on the following grounds 1. The power to administer justice was vested in Patna Council. 2. The Council left the whole case to Law officers who exercised the reflecting powers of the Council 3. The Council was not authorized to delegate its powers The declared the gift deed genuine and said that Begum is entitled for the entire property left by her husband and also awarded Rs 3,00,000 for damages
Cossijurah Case
Background 1. Mr Kashinath landed a large sum to the Zamindar of Cosijurah n did not return the same even after repeated remainders. 2. Kashinath brought a case in Supreme Court in 1779 against the Zamindar. 3. Court issued a Writ of Capias warranting arrest of the Zamindar,who became underground and the WRIT remained unexecuted. 4. The Govt. sought an opinion from Advocate general,who suggested that the Zamindars etc. do not fall within the jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
Cossijurah Case
5. The Zamindar of Cossijurah was suggested to not to appear,plead or do any such act which shows the jurisdiction of Court on him. The Advocate General suggested the Govt to not to assist the Court and leave the entire execution on the Court itself. The Govt. did the same and gave a notice to all Zamindars and land lords informing that they do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. On the other hand the Supreme Court issued another Writ of Sequestration for forfeiture of the property of the Zamindar and to force him to appear before the Court and also sent Sheriffs force to execute the writ.
Cossijurah Case
The Govt. sent an another force to stop the Sheriffs force, which arrested the Courts force and brought them to Calcutta. Kashinath brought an action against the Governor General and members of the Council individually for traspass, who initially appeared in Court but later withdrew themselves as their action was in official capacity as they had done nothing in personal capacity and were also exempted from criminal proceedings in advancement of their official work
Development of Criminal Law 1772-1886 TAZEER- Tazeer meant discretionary punishments. These punishments were inflicted at the discretion of the judge as there were no fixed rules to prescribe such punishments. Status of Witness Willful murder or Unintentional death Pattern of punishments