tion in criminal matters in 1831, when it was declared that Magistrates might refer any criminal case to a Sudder Ameen or Principal Sudder Ameen for investigation, though, they were not authorised to make any commitment.' In the same year the Zillah and City Judges, not being Magistrates, were empowered to conduct the duties of the Sessions, to try commitments made by Magistrates, and to hold monthly gaol deliveries, and to pass sentence or to refer the trials to the Nizamut Adawlut, under the same rules applicable to Commissioners of Circuit; but they were not to interfere with the management of the Police, and all appeals from the orders of the Magistrates lay to the Commissioners of Circuit.2 The In 1832 some important alterations took place. The Principal Sudder Ameens, Sudder Ameens, and law officers, were authorised to sentence persons convicted of theft to labour, in addition to corporal punishment and imprisonment.3 Commissioners of Circuit and Sessions Judges were ordered not to try persons who did not profess the Muhammadan faith for offences cognizable under the general Regulations according to the provisions of the Muhammadan Criminal law; and the Judges or Commisioners were at the same time instructed to refer cases to Panchayits, or to respectable Natives who should sit during trials as assessors, or more in the nature of a jury ; and they were authorised in such cases to dispense with a Fatwa, but the decision was to rest entirely with the Judge.* The Nizamut Adawlut was also empowered to exercise an absolute discretion as to requiring a Fatwa from the law officers of the Court.5 Corporal punishment was absolutely abolished in 1834, excepting where moderate chastisement was necessary for the maintenance of gaol disipline, and imprisonment was ordered to be substituted": labour was also made commutable to fine." The former provision was, however, afterwards modified, and Magistrates were empowered to inflict not exceeding thirty ratans for theft under 50 rupees, but in such case no other punishment was to be superadded.1 In 1835 it was enacted that all or any part of the duties and powers of Commissioners of Circuit might be transferred by the Governors of Bengal and Agra respectively to the Sessions Judges.2 In the year 1841 it was enacted that crimes against the State should be tried by the ordinary tribunals, and that the Government might issue a commission to the Judges for their trial; their sentences and proceedings to be reported to the Nizamut Adawlut, who were to report their sentences to the Government for confirmation.3 In the same year it was enacted that from every sentence or order in criminal trials or proceedings within the limitations prescribed by Regulation IX. of 1793, passed by Assistants to Magistrates, Sudder Ameens, or law officers, one appeal should be permitted within one month to the Magistrates or Joint Magistrates; and from every sentence or order beyond such limitation, passed by a Magistrate or Joint Magistrate, or Assistant to a Magistrate vested with special powers, one appeal should be permitted within one month to the Sessions Judge; and from every such sentence or order of the latter, there should be permitted one appeal within three months to the Nizamut Adawlut, and that the sentences or orders passed on such appeals should be final. It was, however, also enacted (and re-enacted in 1848), that the Nizamut Adawlut might, whenever it should think fit, call for the whole record of any criminal trial in any subordinate Court, and pass such orders thereon as it should think fit, but not so as to enhance the punishment awarded, or punish any person acquitted, by the subordinate Court. In 1843 it was enacted that in cases of conviction of British subjects by Justices of the Peace in the Mofussil or Magis 'Act III. 1844, s. 1. 3 Act V. 1841. 5 Act XXXI. 1841, ss. 3, 4. 2 Act VII. 1835. 4 Act XXXI. 1841, s. 2. trates, under the 53d Geo. III. c. 155. s. 105, an appeal should lie from the sentences of such Justices of the Peace or Magistrates, according to the same rules as are provided by the Regulations and Acts of Government in the case of sentences passed by Magistrates in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, and cases so appealed were not to be afterwards liable to revision by means of a writ of Certiorari.1 (c) Police Establishment. The Police establishment in the Bengal Presidency remains at the present day nearly in the same state as when first established by Lord Cornwallis; but some few circumstances and modifications may be remarked. In the year 1795 the Police of Benares was placed under the management of the Tahsíldárs, landowners, and farmers, who were made responsible for robberies committed within the limits of their estates, excepting night robberies on the open roads or in woods.2 In 1803 the same plan was extended to the ceded provinces3, and in 1804 to the conquered provinces.* 5 The Tahsíldárí system being found, however, to be objectionable, all the above places were, in the year 1807, divided into Police jurisdictions, nearly in the same way as had been already adopted throughout Bengal, Behar, and Orissa. In all these instances the cities and towns were placed under the guard of Dáróghahs and Kútwáls. Ameens of Police were appointed in the same year in all the Bengal provinces, for the apprehension of persons charged with heinous offences. 6 A Superintendent of Police, being a covenanted servant of the Company, was established in 1808, for the provinces of Bengal and Orissa, but more especially for Calcutta, Moorshedabad, and Dacca. This Superintendent was to possess a concurrent jurisdiction with the Zillah and City Magistrates, and to be under the authority of the Nizamut Adawlut in Police matters.1 In 1810 his jurisdiction was extended to Patna, and at the same time a second Superintendent was appointed for Benares and Bareilly.2 The duties of these Superintendents were defined and enlarged in 1816, when, in addition to the management of the whole system of Police being committed to their care, they were directed to submit to the Government annual reports of all Police occurrences and statements of the Police establishments in their respective districts.3 A general revision of the whole system of Police, not, however, effecting any material alteration in the previous establishment, took place in the following year, and a Regulation was passed', which, as Harington observes, may be called "The Police Officers, Manual in the Provinces subject to the Presidency of Fort William." This Regulation still further defines the duties of the Superintendents, and the relative authorities and functions of the subordinate officers, who were to preserve the peace within the limits of their jurisdictions, to prevent, so far as possible, all criminal offences, to apprehend offenders, and to report all occurrences connected with the Police to the Magistrates. The Dáróghah was empowered to hold inquests in cases of suspicious death, to search for stolen property, to suppress riots and affrays, to apprehend persons resisting process, to report burglaries, and to direct particular attention to suppression of Dakoity and illegal Satí. He was to forward all persons apprehended by him, and charged with crimes or offences, to the Magistrate. The Muharrir, who was the second officer of the Thanah, was authorised to exercise the powers vested in the Dáróghah in the absence of that officer, as was also the Jamadár, or third officer, in the absence of the Muharrir and Dáróghah. The village watchmen were also enjoined to report to the Thanah all Police occurrences, and to apprehend offenders.7 1 1 Reg. X. 1808. 6 Reg. XVII. 1816. 'Harington's Analysis, p. 464, 2d edit. 7 Reg. XX. 1817, s. 21. No further alteration of importance took place until the year 1829, when the office of Superintendent of Police was abolished, and the duties of the Superintendents were assumed by the Commissioners of Circuit already described1. The Governor of Bengal, or the Lieutenant Governor of the North-Western Provinces, were empowered, in the year 1837, to appoint Superintendents of Police for the territories under their respective Governments, who were to be guided in the execution of their duties by the rules contained in Regulation X. of 1808; and on such appointment the Commissioners of Circuit were to cease to exercise the powers of Superintendents of the Police vested in them by Regulation I. of 18292, and the said Superintendents were empowered to exercise all the powers exercised by the Commissioners of Circuit. 2. MADRAS. (1) ORIGIN OF THE ADAWLUT SYSTEM. The present Madras system for the administration of justice is founded on that introduced during the Government of the son of the great Lord Clive in the year 1802, and which was framed upon that of Bengal. Following the plan I have already traced out, I shall describe shortly, in the first place, the system of 1802, and then proceed to mention succinctly the changes that have taken place up to the present time, treating separately of the three departments, Civil, Criminal, and Police. (2) SYSTEM OF 1802. The system of 1802 presents little or no variation from that of Lord Cornwallis. It was determined that the offices of Judge and Magistrate, and of Collector of the Revenue, should be held by distinct persons. Native Commissioners were appointed, with power to try suits not exceeding in value 80 1 1 Reg. I. 1829. 2 Act XXIV. 1837, ss. 1-4. |