Raja Nand Kumar Case 1775

One of the function of the Supreme Court was to protect the native residing in
Bengal Bihar and Orissa against the oppressive act of the company servant.

but the court failed to discharge this function effectively because the
language ,Law, procedure adopted by it was foreign to the native and was also
repulsive to the their custom and tradition

The trial of Raja Nand kumar clearly indicate that the supreme court failed to
act with the prudence to impart justice to the natives.

The background and the facts of the cases where as follows

 Background of the Case
Governor-General Raja Nand Kumar
& the council
Raja Nand kumar a Hindu
Brahmin was a big Zamindar

and very influential person of

Bengal he was loyal to
English company ever since
the day of Clive

and was popularly called

Black Colonels and by the
company

Governor-General
Four Members of the council
Warren Hasting

Batewell
[
Francis Clavering Monsoon
- Farous -↓

oppose of Warren Hasting

Supreme Court of Judicature

Sir Elijah Impey
He was Chief Justice of Supreme Court of justice
 count

Trout
X Batewell

Farous
ing
Francis Monsoon

oppose of Warren Hasting

Favous oppose ↓
Majority graup

L Against
O
= to kumar
instigate (in)

bits
-

ge

/ Bibert
·
corpion
Raja Nand kow as

neis
Letter
letter
Francis to

Bsibest of more than one

Now Francis placed this

Lake Rupees For Appointing
->

his Gurudas letter Before Grucil

Sone .
As Divan in
The letter also contained an
allegation against the hasting that he
accepted two and half lakh rupees
the
Meeting
from Munni Begum as bribe for
appointing her as the guardian of the
minor Nawab Mubarak-ud-Daullah Ason
b

Moved a motion that

Hand Komar should be summoned to abal
the Gowet
Before
.

Hasting opposed a
-
one Motion

He was Presiding over Corneil

 warren
Hasting
well -
supporter of

Complaint
~>
0
Suggestion - Hand Kumar -

shan his
Supreme Gust
↳
Because

*
it was the lust
and not the launeit

which was Competent to hear

the Case .

Batewell -
ing
Francis Monsoon
# But Monson Motion was
Farous oppose of Hasting
Warren
supported by Majority the
Majorit granp
⑳ hence Hasting Dissolved the
Meeting
↳
.

to this
action
obsrected
of Hasting
:

Preside
alavering to
C
elected
Majority -> Examine #and -
- >

Group b " over the

meeting
in place of
Nand Kumas
Hastings
.

Called Gunsit Bove his charge against

before to
Hasting
b
Examine > Charge Proved
D
 and
Directed to Deposit amount
of
Hasting
an
->

⑭105 in the Treasure of the Company

-7 Bribe
from
Monni B Nawd 15 .

This event made Hasting a bitter in any of Nand kumar and he looked
for an opportunity to show him down

Fact of the Nand kumar case 1775

Soon after Nand kumar along with Fawkes and Radha Charan was charged and arrested for conspiracy at the
instance of Hasting and Barwell.

In order to bring for the disgrace to Raj Nand Kumar hasting manipulated another case of forgery against him at
the instance of one Mohan Prasad.

Conspiracy case Supreme Court in its decisions of July 1775 fined Fawkes but reserved its judgement against
Nand kumar on the ground of pending fraud case the charge against Nandakumar in forgery case was that he
had forged a bond in 1770

The council protested against Nandkumar charge in the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court proceed with the
case and he did finally the Nand kumar was tried by a jury of 12 English men who returned a verdict of guilty and
consequently the Supreme Court sentence him to death under the act of british Parliament which was passed in
1728( forgery act 1728)
 Critics of Nand kumar

Nand Kumar was not a resident of Calcutta therefore the jurisdiction of

Supreme Court over his trial was.full doubtful particularly because it was
initiate on the complaint of Mohan Prasad who was also and Indian
native.

The offence of forgery for which Nandakumar‘ was alleged to have been
committed in 1770 long before the establishment of Supreme Court in
1774.

Forgery was not recognised as capital offence under the Hindu law or
mohammedan law . It was however a capital offence under the statute
of 1728 of England but this law was unknown to the natives in India.