Judicial plan of 1787
Judicial plan of 1790
Judicial plan of 1793
Progress of Adalat System under Sir John Shore.
Cornwallis and plan of 1787 –
Warren Hasting came to India as a clerk aged 16 and later became the Governor-General of Bengal and British India. He divided the Functions of revenue and judiciary system. But many senior member of company did not like it and the separation is costly for company. When Warren Hasting left India. The court of Directors on 12th April 17866 directed the Corwallis to vest in one person the revenue, judicial and magisterial Functions. Cornwallis followed the ordered and introduced plan of 1787. In this plan Cornwallis increased the salaries of collectors and he reduced the number of Diwans district from 36 to 23 and this made it possible to increase the salaries of collectors the scheme was introduced through 2 regulations. Ist regulation dealt with administration of justice and it was enacted on 27 June 1787. In each district a company’s English servant was appointed as collector who will collect revenue as well as will decide to all cases relating to revenue collector also worked as judge in the district Moffussil Diwani Adalat to decide civil cases, succession cases and lad related case like boundaries.
Revenue court was known as Mal Adalat appeals from Mal Adalat went to the Board of revenue at Calcutta and finally to the Governor – General. In Diwani Adalat appeal in the cases where matters involving more than 1000 Rs. Went to the Sardar Diwani Adalat, where Governor – General and Council handled the cases.
Appeals from Sardar Diwani Adalat went to the King – in – Council. In each Adalat registrar was appointed as a subordinate officer to help collectors. Registrar was given power to handle decide cases up to Rupees 200 and order passed by him became valid. When it were signed by the judge of Moffussil Adalat.
As a Magistrate collector was authorized to try and arrest criminals in petty offences. The Magistrate got power to hear the cases against the Englishmen who committees Crimes against Indians in this case Magistrate made inquiry and he felt that there is ground for trial he would send the Englishmen accused to the Calcutta for trial
Judicial Reforms of Lord Cornwallis
Lord Cornwallis succeeded Warren Hastings in 1786. The Governor Generalship of Lord Cornwallis extended from 1786 to 1793. This period constitutes a very remarkable and a highly creative period in Indian Legal History. He was Commander-in-Chief as well as Governor General. Lord Cornwallis brought reforms in the revenue, military, civil and criminal judicial system in India in his tenure. Lord Cornwallis introduced the concept[t of administration according to law for the first time in India. After his arrival in India, he found that the whole system was complicated, illogical and wasteful. He reorganized the judicial system, both civil and criminal, in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. He was successful to a great extent in checking corruption in the courts which was rampant in those days. Lord Cornwallis introduced the reforms in the judicial system in three installments – first in 1787, secondly in 1790 and thirdly in 1793.
The Judicial Plan of 1787 of Lord Cornwallis
During the tenure of Warren Hasting’s, the judicial the revenue functions were separated by vesting them in distinct functionaries. The Directors of the Company demanded economy, simplification and purification and as an essential part of these ideas the merger of revenue and judicial functions. The Court of Directors directed Cornvellis to vest in one person the revenue, judicial and managerial functions. This scheme was introduced through two regulations – one dealt with revenue administration and was passed on the 8th June 1787, the other dealt with the administration of justice and was enacted on June 27, 1787.
The Salient features of Regulations of June 8, & June 27, 1787
1. The number of districts were reduced from 36 to 23. In each district, a Company’s English Covenanted Servant was appointed as Collector.
2. The Collector was made in charge of the revenue collection in the district. All revenue cases were decided by the court known as Mal Adalat. It was presided over by the Collector.
3. The Collector was also to act as the Judge in the district Mofussil Diwani Adalat to decide civil cases. The judge was also to decide cases and claims concerning succession and boundaries to zamindaries, talukadaries or other rent free land.
4. The collector was also to act as the Magistrate in the district. In this capacity, he was to arrest the criminals and send them to the nearest Mofussil Nizamt Adalat for their trial. As a Magistrate he was given power to punish offenders who have committed pretty crimes by inflicting punishment not exceeding 15 strokes or imprisonment not exceeding 15 days, in serious cases, the offenders were committed to the Mofussil Nizamat Adalat for trial.
5. The functions of civil justice, powers of Magistrate and function of revenue collection and adjudication of revenue disputes were united in the Collector. However he was to discharge each part of his duties separately according to the department to which it belonged.
6. The salaries of the collectors were increased to seek purity of administration though it was not in favor of economy.
7. Appeals from the decisions of the Collector in his Mal Adalat lay to the Board of Revenue at Calcutta and then to the Governor-General-in-Council. Appeals from the Mofussil diwani Adalat were allowed to be preferred to the Sadar Diwani Adalat if the amount involved was more than Rs.1000/-. A further appeal was allowed to the Kind-in-council(Privy Council) in cases where the subject matter involved was £5000 or more.
8. The Sadar Diwani Adalat, consisting of the governor-General and the members of his Council was assisted by the Chief Quazi, Chief Mufti and two Moulvies who were to expound the Muslim Law. In cases involving the interpretation of Hindu law, the Sadar Dwani Adalat was assisted by Hindu Pandits.
9. An Office of Registrar, a subordinate officer, was created to assist the Collector, in his administration of civil justice. The Registrar could decide cases up to Rs.200. However the decree passed by him were to be counter-signed by the judge of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat to avoid is carriage of justice.
10. The Birtish nationals residing in the mofussil area beyond Calcutta were subject to the criminal jurisdiction only of the Supreme Court and could not be tried by the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalats. But, it was laid down in 1787 that the Magistrates would have authority on information lodged on oath to apprehend the British subjects. After making an inquiry in the circumstances, if the Magistrate was satisfied that there existed grounds of his trial, he would send the accused to Calcutta for trial. The complainants and their witnesses had also to go the Calcutta to prosecute the accused. If they were poor, their charges of journey were to be met by the government. All other Europeans, who were not British subjects, were placed on the same footing as Indians and their cases were within the jurisdiction of the Mofussil Fauzdari Adalats.
Defects of the Scheme of 1787
The collector was over empowered and united the functions of judicially and executive in one person. It was a retrograde step. The collector was more interested in revenue collection than the administration of justice.
Judicial Plan of 1790 of Lord Cornwallis
The judicial plan of 1787 of Lord Cornwallis mainly introduced reforms in civil and revenue courts. In those days criminal justice was administered as per the Mohammedan Criminal law. It suffered from various defects. By the Judicial Plan of 1790 Cornwallis concentrated his attention to reform criminal courts as he realized that the prevailing system was defective and inefficient. Though under the judicial plan of 1787 the Magistrates (Collectors) were empowered to try and punish petty offences, very limited powers were given to try criminal cases. The result was the majority of the cases were to be decided by the Muslim Law officers (Kazi & Mufti) of Moffussil fauzdari Adalats.The working of these Adalats was wholly unsatisfactory and irregular. The following were the major defects in the administration of criminal justice.
1. The entire criminal administration of justice was in the hands of Nawab,. He had no effective administrative control over the Muslim law officers who were the judges of criminal courts.
2. The salaries given to the persons engaged in the work of rendering criminal justice was quite insufficient to support the dignity of their office. Moreover, salaries were not paid in time.
3. There was no security of the tenure of Muslim law officers. They could be dismissed at any time discretion of Naib Nawab. This face stimulated them to accept bribes to grow richer so that they could live comfortably when dismissed. There was wide prevalent miscarriage of justice..
4. The Moffussil Fausdari Adalats were vested with so much of powers that except death sentence they could impose any punishment. The highest criminal court was Sadar Nizamat Adalat and it functioned from Murshidabad. It proved quite ineffective to exercise control over the lower criminal courts.
5. The Muslim Criminal Law which was applied by the courts was also defective in many ways. Some of its provisions were contrary to the principles of natural justice and in some cases the punishments were quite contrary to the basic tenets of civilization.
6. The numerous robberies, murders and other enormities showed that the administration of criminal justice was in a very deplorable state. These evils resulted from the great delay which occurred in bringing offenders to punishment and the law not being duly enforced. A number of examples are traceable where the Mofussil fauzdari Adalts had either awarded unduly harsh punishments upon persons guilty of less serious crime, or inadequate sentence were passed upon hardened criminals.
Salient Features of Judicial Plan of 1790
According to the regulation passed by the Governor-General-in-Council on 3rd December, 1790 some reforms were introduced in the administration of criminal justice. Cornwallis took strong steps to remove the defects of the Mohammedan Criminal Law and also the defects in the organisation of the Criminal Courts.
In 1790, the orgnisation of criminal court was modified. The arrangement of existing courts was changed. The Mofussil Fauzdari Adalats were abolished. The new plan provided for three types of criminal courts. There are:
1. Courts of District Magistrates
2. The Courts of Circuit and
3. Sadar Nizamat Adalat
1. The Court of District Magistrate
In each district, the Collector was to act as the Magistrate. As a Magistrate, he was to arrest the accused person and hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the crime alleged against him. If the Magistrate found the complaint against the suspect wholly unfounded, he would discharge him. If the offence committed was petty, the Magistrate could himself award the sentence of corporal punishment not exceeding 15 strokes or 15 days imprisonment. If the crime was serious, the accused was to be tried by the Court of Circuit. In some offences he could even release the accused on bail to be tried at the next sitting of the Court of Circuit. But in cases of murder, robbery etc., he could not grant any bail.
2. The Court of Circuit.
The entire Mofussil area was divided into four divisions – Patna, Calcutta, Murshidabad and Dacca. A Court of Circuit consisting of two company’s covenanted servants was established in each division to try all criminal cases. It was not a stationary but a moving court it moved from district to district within the division of trying the accused persons. The existing Mofussil Fauzdari Adalats with the Muslim Law Officers were abolished and their place was taken over by the four Courts of Circuit.
The Court of Circuit was to visit each district within its jurisdiction twice a year to dispose of criminal cases awaiting trial. The Indians and European, not being British subjects, were put under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Circuits.
The courts of Circuit were assisted by Muslim law officers such as Quaazi and Muftis. The Quazi and Muftis were to expound the law and propose the Fatwa (decision) on the facts, If it was in conformity with the principles of natural justice and equity, the sentence was passed by the judges of the court. The award of deth sentence was to be referred to the Sadar Nizamat Adlat for confirmation. There could be an appeal from the decision of the Court of Circuit to the Sadar Nizamat Adalat.
3. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat.
The seat of the Sadar Nizamat was at Murshidabad. Under the judicial plan of 1790, the Nawab of divested of all his judicial powers. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was shifted to Calcutta.
The Governor-General and members of his council presided over the Sadar Nizamat Adalat. They were to be assisted by Muslim law officers i.e., Chief Quazi and to Muftis.
The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was required to conduct its business at least once in a week and a regular record of its proceedings was to be kept. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat was to apply the Mohammedan Criminal law as amended by the governor-General-in-Council.
In order to make the system full proof against corruption, bribery, the Muslim Law Officers were nominated by the Governor-general-in-Council and they could not be removed from their posts except by the governor-general-in-council on the ground of incapacity or misconduct and thus Muslim Law Officers were given a security of tenure.
The new criminal judicial under the scheme of 1790, was inaugurated on January 1, 1791. The office of the Remembrance created during Warren Hasting’s regime was now abolished. The first meeting of the Sadar Nizamat Adalat was held on January 10, 1791. Under the new scheme, the governor-general-in-Council for the first time assumed a direct responsibility for the administration of criminal justice in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Besides, the salary of the persons working in the criminal courts was increased so that they might not be easily tempted.
Reforms introduced in Mohammedan Criminal Law between 1790 and 1793.
Lord Cornwallis made the following reforms in the Mohammedan Criminal Law and all the Adalats were directed to decide the cases according to the modified Mohammedan Criminal Law.
1. In determining the punishment to be inflicted for the crime of murder, the intention of the party rather than the manner of instrument employed should be taken into account.
2. The punishment of mutilation was abolished and imprisonment and hard labour for 14 years and 7 ears were substituted for the loss of two limbs and that of one limb respectively.
3. The law of evidence was modified so as make provision that religion would not be a bar to be a witness and thus the rule that a Hindu could not be a witness against Mohammedan was abolished.
4. The relations of a murdered person could not grant pardon to the offenders so as to do away with the trial.
5. The Sadar Nizamat Adalat could pass death sentence instead of granting blood money to the heir as provided under Muslim Law.
Defects
In the systems of 1790, the Courts of Circuits were called upon to handle huge amount of work. In 1792, to lighten the burden of the Courts of Circuit, the Magistrates were empowered to hear and determine complaints of petty thefts and to inflict corporal punishment for the offence up to 30 strokes or imprisonment not exceeding one month.
Judicial Scheme (or Plan) of 1793 of Lord Cornwallis
All the regulations framed between 1772 and 1793 were complied in a code which was known s ‘Cornwallis Code’. In May, 1793 the Cornwallis code was passed – a body of forty eight regulations which held in the field for twenty years.
By the judicial plan of 1793 the following reforms were made.
1. Reorganisation of Mofussil Diwani Adalat
By the plan of 1793, in the place of the Collector, a civil servant of the company was appointed as the judge of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat to decide civil and revenue cases. He was empowered to try all suits in respect of succession or right to real or personal property, land, rents and revenues, debts, accounts, partnership, marriage, caste and claims of damage etc. Mal Adalats were abolished and the suits triable by the Mal Adalats were transferred to the Mofussil diwani Adalat. The Collector was to be responsible only for collection of revenue. The power of administering civil justice was taken away from the Collector and given to the Diwani Adalat. The Collectors were deprived of their judicial powers to decide civil cases and revenue cases. The collectors thus became merely administrative officers.
All persons, except the British subjects, were to be amenable to the jurisdiction of Mofussil Diwani Adalat. No order, proceeding or decree was to be made by an adalat except in open court. No judge was to correspond with parties in cases pending before him. A party could make a representation to the adalat in writing either personally or through an authorized vakeel. The rules of procedure to be observed by the Mofussil Diwani Adalat for receiving, trying and deciding cases were made. The period of limitation was fixed at 12 years.
2. Executive Subjects to Judicial Control
All executive officers including Collectors were subject to the jurisdiction of the Diwani Adalat personally for all acts done by them in official capacity. Any person who felt aggrieved by the acting of the servants of the company could sue such officers I the ordinary court.
3. British Subjects and the company’s Adalats
There was an inequitable distinction which existed between the British subjects and the natives of India. The Diwani Adalat was empowered to take cognizance of all the cases instituted by the British subject against the natives, but the native’s claim against British subjects were not enforced by the Diwani Adalat. In order to remedy this defect it was provided that the diwani Adalat would have jurisdiction over all British subject s in all disputes of civil nature not exceeding in valur of Rs.500/-. In cases above Rs.500/- the jurisdiction over British subjects continued to vest in the Supreme Court at Calcutta created in 1774 and the company’s court were not given any jurisdiction over the British subjects.
4 Establishment of Provincial Court of Appeal.
The plan of 1793 provided for establishment of four Provincial Courts of Appeal at Calcutta, Patna, Dacca and Murshidabad. Each Court was to be presided over by three English Judges. At least two judges were required to make a quorum. The Provincial Court of Appeal could entertain original suits or complaints which a Mofussil diwani Adalat refused to receive or proceed. It had jurisdiction to cause such adalat to hear and determine the same. It had jurisdiction to hear appeals filed from the decision of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat without any pecuniary limit.
The Provincial Courts of Appeal were further authorized to receive the charges of corruption against the subordinate Judges and to forward them to Sadar Diwani Adalat and also to report the cases of negligence and misconduct by the subordinate judges. They were also to enquire into cases referred to them by the Sadar Diwani Adalat or the government for investigation.
The decisions of the Provincial Courts of Appeal were made final in cases in which the subject matter did not exceed one thousand rupees. From these courts a further appeal lay to the Sadar Diwani Adalat in all cases involving over one thousand rupees.
5. Reorganization of Sadar Diwani Adalat.
By the plan of 1793, the Sadar Diwani Adalat was re-established at Calcutta consisting of the governor-General and the members of the Supreme Council. It received appeals from Provincial Courts in cases where the subject matter involved exceeded Rs.1000/-. Further appeals lay to the King-in-Council where the amount in dispute exceeded £5000/-. Thus the decision of Sadar Diwani Adalat were final up to £5000/-. This court could deal with complaints of corruption and incompetency against judges of the courts subordinate to it. It was empowered to supervise and control the functions of the lower courts. It could direct the court of Diwani Adalat and Provincial courts of appeal to receive and dispose of any case. It was also empowered to receive appeal from decision of Mofussil Diwani Adalat which might be cognizable in any Provincial court of Appeal in case of Provincial court had omitted or refused to proceed in it.
6. Munsiff’s Courts or Native Commissioners.
The plan of 1793 provided for the appointment of the Native commissioners who could decide civil suits for sums of money or personal property of a value no exceeding Rs.50/-. These officers were called Munsifs. The number of these commissioners in each district depended upon the bulk of the work to be disposed of. Their selection was made from the landlords and farmers etc., and no other qualifications were prescribed for appointment.
All decisions of Munsifs were appealable to Moffisil Diwani Adalat and then a second appeal cold be taken to the Provincial Court of Appeal.
The Munsiffs were not allowed any salaries and allowances except a commission of one ana (old coin) per rupee ( a rupee is equal to 16 anas) upon all the sums litigated before them.
7. Creation of the Registrar’s courts.
Each Mofussil Diwani Adalat was provided with a Registrar, who was a covenanted servant of the company. The judge of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat could refer to his Registrar suits for money or personal property, subject matter of which did not exceed two hundred rupees. This arrangement was made to relieve the accumulation of arrears of cases in Diwani Adalats. All the case decided by the Registrar required the counter signature of the judge of the Adalat and he was not accorded an independent status to deliver his own judgment.
8. Abolition of Court Fee.
By the plan of 1793 the court fees was abolished. The abolition of court fees was a great relief to the poor people. The gates of the Courts were thrown open to all, rich and poor alike.
9. Security of Tenure of the Indian Law Officers.
The plan of 1793 provided that the law officers of both the Sadar Adalats and Provincial courts of Appeal and Circuit, and the court of Mofussil diwani Adalat were to be appointed and dismissed by the Governor-General-in-Council. They were to take oath on appointment. They were guaranteed of security of tenure. They could be tried for corruption. The governor-General-in-Council was the final authority to take any action.
10. Administration of Criminal Justice.
By the plan of 1793 the following modifications were made in the administration of criminal justice.
1. The Collectors, who acted as Magistrates under the Scheme of 1790, were deprived of their magisterial powers. The judges of the Mofussil Diwani Adalat were made Magistrates with the same powers and functions as were assigned to the collectors.
2. The judicial powers of the Magistrates were redefined. They could punish petty offences by imprisonment up to 15 days or by a fine up to Rs.100/-.
3. The courts of circuit established in 1790 and the Provincial courts of Appeal establishment in 1793 were merged to create four court of appeal and circuit. Each such court was to consist of three English judges. The Court was to break itself into two divisions (the senior judge forming one division and the other two judges forming the other division) which were to go on circuit simultaneously. After completing the same, ll the three judges were to sit to hear appeals from the Mofussil Diwani Adalats.
4. No Changes was made in the constitution of the Sadar Nizamat Adalats.
11. Organization of the Legal Profession –
By the Plan of 1793, the legal profession was regulated. The persons who joined the profession of (vakeels) were required to obtain a certificate (Sanad) after fulfilling the qualifications. Sardar Diwani Adalat was to issue licenses to the pleaders who applied to practice in the law courts. They could be removed from the list of vakeels for proved misbehavior. They were entitled to prescribed fees which were payable to the Court and not directly to the
12. Reforms in the Legislative Methods and Forms –
The Regulation of 1793 provided that every regulation to be passed in future must in preamble stating the reason for its enactment. It was further provided that all the regulation passed in a year to be numbered. They had to be printed and bound up in volume. Provisions were made to send them to law courts.
Comments on the Plan of 1793 of Lord Cornwallis –
The judicial reforms under the plan were the greatest contribution in the field of legal system of India and it forms the high water mark in the legal system of India.
Merits of the Plan of 1793 –
1) The separation between the judicial and revenue functions was maintained.
2) The separation between the judiciary and the executive was maintained to some experts.
3) The principle of the judicial control of the executive authority was applied.
4) Checks and balances were inserted in legal machinery to arrest the practices of corruption.
5) The organization of the Courts was improved.
6) Provincial Courts of Appeal were established for first appeal.
7) The native law officers were provided security of tenure.
8) Legal profession, for the first time, was organized in India.
9) Court – fee was abolished.
10) Subordinate Judicial Agencies were established to deal with petty cases through Munsif.
11) British subjects were equalized to natives in jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.
12) An elaborate procedure for the Diwani Adalats to follow was prescribed.
13) Provision to introduce uniformity in the form of regulations made by the Government for good feature of this plan.
Demerits –
1) The judicial arrangements of 1793 were expected to cost an additional sum of four lacks rupees to the Company.
2) A conspicuous defect in the scheme of 1793 was the exclusion of the Indians from any effective share in public legal administration.
3) The abolition of the court fee resulted in a great increase in the litigation.
4) The appointment of English judges only led to the failure of administration of justice on account of their ignorance of the customs, traditions and language of the country.
5) An anxiety to make the system perfect resulted in making it complicated and encumbered.
6) The scheme did not allow the Munsiffs any salary except a petty commission on the value of the suits and this led naturally to bribery and corruption in Munsiffs courts.
Conclusion –
It is said that the organization of judicial administration initiated by Warren Hastings was completed by Lord Cornwallis.
IMPORTANCE OF CHARTER ACT, 1793 –
The Charter Act 1793 was the first in the series of Charter Acts. The East India Company was granted to monopoly trade license in 1773 for 20 years. The period of monopoly expired on 1793. The Court of Directors applied to the Parliament for the renewal of their Charter. A new bill was introduced in the House of Commons. The bill was passed without any difficult and it is known as the Charter Act of 1793.
Main Provision of the Charter Act, 1793-
1) The Company’s commercial monopoly in the East was renewed for 20 years, with the important provision that private individuals would be allowed to trade to the extent of 3,000 tons of shipping.
2) The members of the Board of Control and their staff were to be paid out of Indian revenues.
3) The Governor- General of Bengal and the Governor of Madras and Bombay Presidencies were to have only three members of these Councils. These members were required to be the persons who had resided in India for 12 years at the time of their appointment.
4) The Commander – in – Chief ceases to be a member of the Governor – General Council unless he was specially appointed a member by the directors.
5) The Governor- General and the Governors were empowered to exercise their veto ion case affecting in any way the safety, tranquility or interest of British possession in India.
6) The Governor-General – in Council was to have full power and authority to superintendent, direct and control the presidencies.
7) The Governor-General, Governors, the Commander-in-Chief and a few other high officials could not go out of India on leave so long as the held the office.
8) The Governor-General and Council were authorized to appoint Justice of peace in any Presidency.
9) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the Calcutta Supreme Court was extended to the high seas.
10) The Act reiterated that the policy of non-intervention enunciated by the Pitt’s India Act was to be followed in India, and schemes of conquest and extension were contrary to the wish, honor and policy of the nation.
11) Receiving of gifts by servants of the company was to be considered a misdemeanor.
12) The civil servants of the company were to be garded in ranks according to seniority of service and promotion to a higher post was to depend upon the length of one’s service. No post with pay of over pond 500 a year was to be awarded to any persin except covenanted servants of the company.
13) The sale of liquor was made subject to the grant of a license and power was given to the Governor-General to levy a sanitary tax in the presidency towns.
The Act was essentially a consolidating measure and its attention struck at points of details. The Act merely re-enacted many of the provision of the previous Acts and extended their application.
JUDICIAL REFORMS OF SIR JOHN SHORE –
Sir John Shore succeeded Lord Cornwallis in 1793 as Governor-General of India. John Shore introduced some changes in the then existing judicial system.
Changes in 1794 –
1. Authority of the Courts of Registrar Increased-
The Registrar was sit thrice in a week to try the cases up to a value of two hundred rupees, referred to him by the judge of the Diwani Adalat. Up to rupees twenty-five the decision of the Registrar was made final. However, in such cases the judge of the Diwani Adalat could interfere if he found the decision to be wrong and unjust. If the value of a case exceeded rupees twenty five, appeal could be taken to the Provincial Courts of Appeal directly.
2. Collectors were allowed Partial Judicial Powers –
The Diwani Adalat was empowered to refer to the Collector, revenue cases involving adjustment of accounts relating to rent for preparing a report and submitting it to the Diwani Adalat for decision. But any account relating to suits in which the Collector or any of his officers, servants, or the Government was a party could not be referred to the Collectors. Thus the Collectors who was divested on all judicial functions under the scheme of 1793, was again given a minor judicial work. He was authorized to decide revenue cases involving the adjustment of accounts for security and report. This provision saved time of the Diwani judge.
Changes in 1795 –
1. Appeal from the Court of Registrar –
By the scheme of 1795, the appeals from the decisions of the Courts of Registrar were to be taken to the Court of Mofussil Diwani Adalat and not to the Provincial Court of appeal. Moreover, only one appeal could be preferred and not two as before.
2. Appeal from the Court of Munsiff –
By the scheme of 1795, the appeal from the Munsiff Court lay to Mofussil Diwani Adalt and its decision made final and the appeal to the Provincial Court of Appeal were prohibited. Thus only one appeal from the decision of the Court of Munsif was allowed to the Mofussil Diwani Adalat.
3. Maintenance of a Register by the Registrar –
The scheme of 1795 provided that the registrar would maintain a register stating therein details about the disposal of cases and cases in arrears. The object of this provision was to strengthen the control of the Sardar Diwani Adalat over the lower Courts.
4. Revival of the institution of Court Fee –
The scheme of 1795 imposed court fee to discourage litigation and fixed the scales according to which the litigants were to pay them. The fee was not only imposed on the suits to be filed but was levied on the earlier cases also awaiting decisions of the courts. The result was that many pending suits were dismissed for failure to pay court fees.
5. Introduction of the Adalat System in Benaras –
In the year 1795, Sir John Shore established the Adalat system in the Province of Banaras with the assert of the Raja of Banaras. Banaras province was divided into four districts. A Mofussil Diwani Adalat was established in each district. A Provincial Court of Appeal was established at Banaras. This Provincial Court of Appeal was also to act as the Court of Circuit for the trial of criminal offence, appeals from which went to Sardar Nizamat Adalat at Calcutta. The courts of Registrars and Munsifs were started. Criminal law and justice were to be administered on the lines of Bengal. The jurisdiction of the Sardar Adalats at Calcutta was extended to Banaras too.
Special favour was accorded to Brahmans. It was provided that no Brahman could be punished with death. Instead of death sentence he was to be sentenced to transportation.
Can you help me with sociology for 3rd sem
ReplyDelete