top of page



700 items found for ""

Blog Posts (440)

  • What is Grammar? DAY 1

    What is Grammar? www, TOPIC What is Grammar? The Capital Letter What is Grammar? Here’s an old children’s rhyme about the eight parts of speech of English grammar. It gives you an idea of what grammar is about. Read and remember it. Every name is called a noun, As field and fountain, street and town. In place of a noun, the pronoun stands, As he and she can clap their hands. The adjective describes a thing, As a magic wand or bridal ring. Most verbs mean action, something is done, Verb Adjective Preposition To read and write, to jump and run. How things are done the adverbs tell, As quickly, slowly, badly, well. The preposition shows relation, As in the street or at the station. Conjunctions join, in many ways, Sentences, words, or phrases and phrases. The Capital Letter The capital letter is also called a big letter or upper-case letter, or sometimes just a capital. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z When do you use a capital letter? Use a capital letter for the first letter in a sentence: The Capital Letter The dog is barking. Come here! Always use a capital letter for the word : Am eight years old. Rajesh and are good friends. Use a capital letter for the names of people: Sudhir, Rajesh, James, Kapil, Snow White Use a capital letter for the names of places: National Museum, Bronx Zoo, India, London, Sacramento Use a capital letter for festivals, holidays, days of the week, months of the year: New Year’s Day, Diwali, Christmas, Labor Day, Mother’s Day, Sunday, Monday, Friday, January, May, July, October


    KENNY'S CRIMINAL LAW DEFINITION OF CRIMES The definition of crime has always been regarded as a matter of great difficulty. No satisfactory definition has been achieved as yet in English law. Tort and crime are a viscous inter-mixture. There is not much difference between them. A crime is against the society and a tort is against an individual. But, the society is composed of individuals. The difference is one of degree.'Felony' indicated something cruel, fierce or wicked The word "Crime" was used in the 14th century. Any conduct which was destructive according to a powerful section of any community was a crime. The sovereign power of the state would command to punish such crimes. The procedures taken by the courts, was the "criminal proceeding".In Rome, the sovereign power was with the senate. In the first stage, there was no police organisation. It was left to the individuals to punish: for example a traitor could be killed by any person and there was no punishment to him.Emperor Cladius, changed the marriage law as so to enable him to marry his brother's daughter Agrippina. This is an extreme case, but. a 'dictator could alter the law according to his whimsies and fancies. In later years, the law making, came under the influence of public opinion.Crime, is the creation of Govt. policy, according to Kenny. Crimes, originate in the Govt. policy of the moment. The governing power in society, forbids a man from doing certain acts, called crimes. Of course, subsequent governments may change them. As long as this changing pattern continues, the nature of crime, eludes a true definition. However, according to Kenny, there are three characteristics in a crime. i) It is a harm caused by human conduct, which the sovereign desires to prevent. ii) The preventive measure is threat of punishment. iii) Legal procedures are employed to prove the guilt according to law. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Much of English criminal law is not contained in any code (in India there is the l.P.C.) hut it is a conglomerate mass of rules based on common law, and in addition there are a few enactments made by Parliament from time to time.It was Chief Justice Coke who stated the rule "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (the act and the intent must both concur to constitute crime). This famous maxim refers to man's deed (actus) and his mental processes (mens) at the time of the commission of the offense. This means the conduct of the person must have been inspired and actuated by his mens rea.In Meli and others V.R.. the facts were, that M and others took D to a hut at night, gave him beer, and, beat him on his head with intent to kill him. Thinking him to be dead, they carried the body out and rolled it down a hill. Medical evidence showed, that death was due to exposure to the cold as he was lying unconscious, and not due to the beating. Defense was as follows : The first part was the beating with intent to kill M ; but, this beating did not cause the death, hence, there was no actus reus of murder. Once, they believed that he was dead, their intention to kill had ceased ; but, they desired to evade detection (malice afore thought) and hence, put him down the hill. Here, death was due to freezing, but, the Privy Council rejected this and held that it was one transaction and therefore, it was murder. Actus reus : This is the deed or the commission. It is the material result of the conduct of the accused, which the law wants to prevent. In case of murder, it is the victim's -death by any means that is the actus reus, but mens rea is the intention of the accused.The actus reus must have been prohibited to create criminal liability e.g.. harm to the person, destruction of property etc. It is therefore, clear that if killing is authorised e.g. death sentence, there is no murder. Causation : A man is said to have caused, the actus reus of killing a person, if death would not have occurred without the participation of the accused. (i) This participation may be direct i.e., when the accused A kills B (ii) It is indirect when he instigates another to kill. A secretly puts poison into a drink which A knows that B will offer to C. (iii) A crime may be committed without physical participation e.g. conspiracy, abetement etc. (iv) Mens rea in one and actus reus in another is possible. A keeps a goldsmith G, at the point of gun, takes him to a house where G is forced to open the lock which he does. A thereupon takes away the goods, here, G is kept in such a threat to his life that there is no 'mens rea' and hence not guilty. v) By intervention of a third person, a crime may be committed. !n R.C. Higgins, the warden of a jail was held not guilty for the death of the prisoner. The prisoner had been confined for 44 days in a dangerous room. The warden neither intended nor did he know about the confinement. But. such cases are to be decided with caution, according to Kenny E, an engineer, had left his place, by leaving an ignorant boy in charge of an 'engine. The boy failed to stop the engine properly, and. as a result of that, 'A' a worker died, held, E was liable, the engineer-should have contemplated such a possibility. vi) There are also cases where the victim's own conduct or contributory negligence would result in a crime. These are to be decided with sound reasons. This establishes the rule that both mens rea and actus reus must concur to constitute a crime. Objective and subjective standards : Mens rea as one of the elements to constitute crime, was recognised by the English courts by a slow process. In the beginning the courts applied as objective standard. The courts applied its own standard of what was right or wrong and tested whether the prisoner had acted obedient to it or not. The view of the prisoner was of no consequence. This theory was replaced by subjective standard doctrine. The court took into consideration the personality-mental and physical- of the prisoner. This led to the examination of his actual intention. This is the subjective test. For example, in cases of self-defence or misadventure, where the prisoner kills 'A' according to the objective standard the court would award him conviction, but would then be pardoned by the Crown. However with the subjective standard of looking to the 'mental element" the courts may acquit the prisoner on grounds of private defence etc. Conclusions : For application of the concept of actus non tacit reum, nisi mens sit rea, at common law in England the conditions are summarised, by Kenny, as follows : 1. The person (prisoner) must be of full age, of male sex, of sound mind and living within the jurisdiction of the English courts. 2. he must have committed the offence within the courts jurisdiction. Further, there must be "actus reus", that his conduct must be voluntary and that he foresaw some consequences, the nature of these is fixed by law. Mens Rea in statutory offences : The old view was that the legislature should not override common law. This has long been abandoned. In modern law the statute made by the Parliament is paramount. Hence, in interpreting the statute there is a presumption that mens rea is part of the offence. This is a weak presumption and may be rebutted by the statute itself.After the 19th century, there was a marked move by the Parliament in regulating social life by creating offenses with light punishment. The courts became inclined to solely interpret the words of the statute, than imposing 'mens rea. The leading case is R.V. Prince : P had taken a girl, out of the possession and against the will of the parents. The girl was in fact below 16, but P contended that she looked to be above 16 and hence, there was no offence. The courts held him guilty. No reference was made to mens rea. Though this was the trend set by the courts, still there are in- stances where courts have in suitable cases insisted on proving mens rea, on the basis of tr^e protection of the liberty of the individual. In recent years, in respect of many of the offences created by legislation, the courts have considered them as exceptions to the rule of mens rea. In some, mens rea is held as part of the offence. In Kat V Diment, the prisoner was convicted for having used false trade description, of "non-brewed vinegar'. It was held that when a statute forbids the doing of an act, doing of it, itself supplies mens rea. Conclusions : Kenny concludes that it was not possible to for- mulate any principle in statutory offences to say to what extent mens rea is a constituent. The statute itself is the guiding star. The ordinary rules of interpretation should be used. A statute may directly exclude mens rea. R.V. Tolson : W, married H, with the reasonable belief that her first husband was dead, as he was not heard of for 7 years. There was no reference to mens rea in the statute. Held, that mens rea is excluded in the statute. W was held not liable as she had a reasonable belief that her first husband was dead. The modern trend is to exclude mens rea from statutory offences. Mala in se and Mala prohibita : The subjective standard doctrine of mens rea led to a fallacious classification of crimes in England. Some were serious and gave rise to deep moral reprobation. Such offences were mala in se (bad in themselves) e.g. Homicide, adultery, bigamy, slave trading, offences against God and nature etc. (Blackstone).Other offences "mala prohibita" (prohibited acts) were breaches of laws which imposed duties without involving moral guilt. Eg. : Not performing work on public roads. This classification has no relevance today. Mens rea and I. P. C. In India, the concept is not applicable. The difficulty felt in England, in interpreting mens rea, is obviated by the I.P.C. and by Indian statutes. This is done by defining exactly, the nature of the mental element of the accused.The various offences in the I.P.C., require that the act (actus reus) must have been done with the mental element: "dishonestly", fraudulently", "knowingly", "intentionally", "with intent to" etc. With this description the concept of mens rea has been excluded from the definitions of offences. Hence, it has no relevance to Indian Criminal Law. VARIATIONS IN LIABILITY Mistake as a defence at common law : Kenny puts three special circumstances in which the criminal guilt is lessened or entirely excluded. These are "mistake", "intoxication" and "compulsion"'.If mistake is to be considered as a good defense, three conditions are to be fulfilled. a) The mistake must be of such a nature that, if the supposed circumstances were real, there would not have been any criminal liability attached to the accused. Mistake negatives mens rea and hence, the accused is not guilty. It does not negative actus reus. Accordingly to Foster, in a case, 'A' before going to the church, fired off his gun and left it empty. In his absence, some person took the gun, went out for shooting and on returning left it loaded, later A returned, took up the gun and touched the trigger, which went off and killed his wife. A had reasonable grounds to believe that the gun was not loaded. Hence, he would not be guilty of murder. b) The mistake must be reasonable. This is a matter of evidence. But, this is to be established to the satisfaction of the Court ,A, in order to free his wife from a demon which had possessed her, held her over fire and with a red hot poker, which scared her. The wife died in consequence. A had reasonably believed that he would free her from the devil, with his actus reus. Held, A was guilty of murder. c) Mistake however reasonable must relate to matters of fact. The rule isignorantia facti excusat : Ignorance of fact excuses ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of law is no excuse. An Italian who kept a lottery house in England was held guilty. His plea that in Italy the act was legal and that he had mistaken notion of English law, was rejected by the court. In India, Sns. 76 and 79 deal with mistake of fact and mistake of law (Refer Chapter 2,). Intoxication : The old law in England, dealt with intoxication as one which aggravated the crime and hence, punishable. But, in the present day, the effect of intoxication is considered as similar to illness produced by poison etc. Hence, actual insanity, produced by drinking as in "delirium tremens", is a defence. This should be established as a fact. If the intoxication, is caused by a companion and not voluntarily by the accused himself, then the accused is exempted. However, it is to be established before the court that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. Relevance : Drunkenness may be relevant : i) to establish a mistake ii) to show the absence of intention or specific intention iii) to show this as part of an offence e.g. drunken person in charge of child of seven years, or drunken driver causing an accident etc. iv) to show that it has happened in provocation.A in a fit of passion, is provoked and kills B, who was responsible for the provocation. In some circumstances, this is culpable homicide and not murder. The general rule is that intoxication is not a defence but may be relevant as stated above. The position in India is stated in Sn. 85. I.P.C. (See ch. 2.2.) Insanity Insanity of a particular and appropriate kind is regarded as a good defense in English law. Medical profession has classified these mental variations. The leading case is R.V. Mcnaghten. One M had killed Mr. Drummond the private secretary of Sir Robert Peel. But, in reality by mistake, he had killed not the real Mr. Drummond. Insanity was the ground of defence. He was acquitted on this ground. This caused great resentment and the House of Lords stated certain principles as guidelines. i) Every person is sane, until proved otherwise. ii) At the time of committing the offence, the accused must be labouring from a disease of mind to lose his reason and to know whether what he was doing was wrong or not. iii) If he was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do, he is punishable. iv) the nature of the delusion decides the question. The actus reus must have been actuated by delusion directly.The burden of proof is on the accused to prove his insanity India : Sn. 84,1.P.C. insanity as a defence.If the offence is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or knowing the nature of what he was doing was wrong or illegal, he is not guilty of the offence. In Sakaram Ramji's case, the accused was a habitual ganja smoker. He quarreled with his wife and killed her and the children. The plea that he had a diseased state of mind due to Ganja, and that he was incapable of knowing what he was doing, was rejected by the court .Held Guilty of murder. PRELIMINARY CRIMES Attempt : This is the most common of the preliminary crimes. It consists of the steps taken by the accused in furtherance of doing an offence, i.e.. The long chain of steps taken to reach a stage to constitute the crime of attempt. This chain is the actus reus".To constitute attempt, there must be mens rea and actus reus at common law, The actus reus consists of the deed done in actual furtherance of the crime intended. This must show that the accused was aiming at a crime. This means, he must have taken some steps to do the crime or to attain his ultimate objective. The leading case is R.V. Robinson. Robinson, a jeweler, had insured his stocks. One day he bound himself up with a cord and called out for help. The police came on the scene. R told the police, that a stranger had come and tied him up and emptied the jewels. The cash- box was open and empty. Later the police suspected the story, and made a search and found the jewels under a safe. He was charged for attempt to obtain money from the insurance company, by false pretenses.Held, not guilty. Kenny makes a clear analysis of this case. R is not guilty because, the attempt had not yet reached that stage to charge him. The actus reus was not there. If he had made attempts to claim from insurance company, then of course there would have been an attempt. However, in this case there was no attempt, and hence, not guilty.Completed act: When the attempt is completed it results in an offense and the attempt -disappears. The accused becomes liable for the completed offence.India : Sn. 511 of the I.P.C. deals with "attempt" as a stage in an offence. PARTIES TO A CRIME Crimes, in England, are grouped into 3 classes. Treasons, felonies, and misdemeanor. The gravest is treason, and the least of this crime is misdemeanours. Any participation of the accused makes him guilty as a principal in both these offences.But the rules of common law relating to felonies are complicated and the gradation of participation is to be decided to award punishment. For this purpose, Kenny has divided the parties into two groups : principles of the I degree and of the II degree and Accessories before and Accessories after the fact. i) Principals in the first degree : He is the actual offender and the man with the guilty mind. The actus reus is done by him generally. In some cases, the deed may be done through an innocent person. The man who instigates is the real offender. Thus, if a doctor tells the nurse to administer a dose of medicine made by him, and if the patient dies in consequence of the dose, the doctor is the principal of the first degree. There may be two or more persons in the first degree. If a night watchman opens the main entrance of his masters house and allows the accused to enter and steal the goods thereof, both are principals of the first degree. Similarly, when A holds the tongue of C and B cuts it off resulting in the death of C, both A and B are principals in the first degree, ii) Principal in the second degree: These are the persons who aid and abet another in the commission of the crime. At common law, these were punishable equally with the principal in the first degree, but, this was later changed by the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. The second degree man, is one who aids and abets at the very time when the offence is committed, e.g. A person who, aids in possessing explosives, a receiver of stolen property from the thief; person keeping watch and ward when the crime is going on inside the house, etc. Mere presence, will not make a person, an abettor. There must be evidence to show his participation. iii) Accessories before the fact : An accessory is a person who is absent at the time of the com- mission of the felony, buy commends, procures, or abets a felony. R. V. Saunders : in this case, S desired to kill his wife so that he could marry M. He consulted Archer, who advised him to put poison to apple. S did so. the wife after eating a bit of the apple, gave to her female child which ate and died in consequence.Held, Saundes was guilty of murder. The court held that Archer could not be held to be guilty as accessory to kill the child since his aid and advice was to kill the wife and not the child.The principal, in criminal law is different from the principal in tort or contract A, lodge owner, directs M, a maid servant to steal jewels from the inmate of his lodge and M steals them, the maid is the principal and the owner is the accessory before the fact. iv) Accessories after the fact: An accessory in this case is a person who gives shelter or relief in such a fashion as to avoid justice. He may conceal a murderer in his house- mens rea is to assist him. Hence, a person who harbours an offender is an accessory after the fact. But, a wife is exempted and incurs no criminal liability for giving shelter to her felonious husband. KENNY'S CRIMINAL LAW

  • History Mughals

    History Mughals Sources of Information The Ain - i - Akbari of Abul Fazl is a mine, of information. Some information is given by the Dasnir - ul - Amals or official handbooks, which were prepared in the time of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. The Iqbal - Namah Jahangir by Muhammad Khan, the Badshah Namah of Abdul Hamid Lahori, the Tazuk - i - Jahangir, the Tabaqat - i Akbari of Nizam - ud - Din and Muntakhab - ul - Tawarikh of Badauni also give useful information. The writings of foreigners like Sir Thomas Roe, Bernier, Hawkins, Manucci, Terry, etc., also throw light on certain aspects of the Mughal Administration. Nature of Mughal Government The mughal administrative system was a military rule and was necessarily a centralised despotism. King was the head of the State . The Mughal Administration presented a combination of Indian and extra - Indian elements ; or , more correctly , it was the Perso - Arabic system in Indian setting . The Mughal Government was military in its origin and though in time it became rooted to the soil, it retained its military character to the last . All the civil servants were Mansabdars or members of the army .The land revenue system of the Mughals was based on the old Hindu system prevailing in the country . The old Hindu revenue officials were employed by the Mughal Government and ordinarily were not interfered with . In the Mughal period, the state was the largest manufacturer. The Emperor gave robes of honour or Khilats to his mansabdars. The Mughal Government was a highly centralized autocracy. The Crown was the pivot of the entire administrative machinery. The Mughal Government was called a Kaghzi Raj or paper government . A large number of books had to be maintained . The attitude of the Mughal Government towards law and justice was opposed to modern conceptions. It was the weakest in this matter. The Government did not perform its responsibility of maintaining peace and security in the rural areas. The judiciary was independent. The administration of Justice through Hindu Pundits and Qazis owed nothing to the king. Aurangzeb had the Muslim law codified for the guidance of his Qazis. Fatwa - i - Alamigri is a digest of Muslim Law . Position of Mughal Emperor The Mughal Emperor- was the head of the administration . Mughal Emperor was the ruler of the Muslims only . He was nominally responsible to the Muslim public or Jamait for his conduct as a king . There was no check on his powers , but in actual practice big autocracy was tempered by the fear of a rebellion . Customary law of the country also put a check . The Ulema had the power to depose a king , but their Fatwas were a mere- scrap of paper so long as the Mughal Emperor had a strong army at his disposal . There was no accepted law of succession among the Mughals . Mughal Emperor in India did not recognise any Khalifa . The Mughal emperor enjoyed many prerogatives . Jharokha - i - Dirshan was one of those prerogatives . This custom was started by Akbar but was stopped by Aurangzeb . Many people looked upon the sovereign as a partial incarnation of God . The Mughal kings worked very hard . They kept longer hours and enjoyed lesser holidays . The orders of the monarch were issued usually through Farmans . There were fivè kinds of seals which were used for different purposes . One seal was used for titles , high appointments , Jagirs and sanctions of large amounts . Second Another seal was used for letters to foreign kings . The third seal was used for judicial transactions . The fourth was used for all matters connected with the departments of the palace . The fifth seal was used for all other matters . The most important seal was the Uzuk seal and it was entrusted to the most dependable person . Some Emperors used to keep the seal with their Queens . In important Farmans , the mark of the royal hand was put at the bottom . The Mughal Emperor had no regular Council of Ministers . The Wazir and the Diwan were the richest persons below the Emperor , but the other officers were in no sense his colleagues . They were admittedly inferior to him and deserved rather to be called secretaties than minister . It was not necessary for the king to consult his ministers on all occasions . The Mughal Government was a one - man rule and Aurangzeb was his own Prime Minister . n The Mughal Emperor had to play double role . He had to govern al the people in is dominions as their king and also act as the missionary , defender and agent of the creed of a section of his subjects . The Ghuslkhana Ghuslkhana was a place of retirement for the King where importan business was transacted .It is only the highly placed officials who were allowed to come to this place. Permits regulated admission to Ghuslkhana . It was the duty of the Superintendent of Ghuslkhana to see the rules . If an official was guilty of an offence against decorum in Ghuslkhana , he was not allowed to leave till he paid the fine inflicted on him . Departments There were many departments of the Government , but the following were the most important : The Exchequer and Revenue under the High Diwan or Diwan - in Ala . The Imperial Household under the Khani - Saman or High Steward . The Military Pay and Accounts Office under the Imperial Bakshi . Canon Law , both Civil and Criminal , under the Chief Qazi . Religious endowments and charity under the Chief Sadar . Censorship of Public Morals under the Muhtasib . The Artillery under the Mir Atish or Darogha - i - Topkhana .. Intelligence and Posts under the Darogha of Dak . Chauki . Mint under a Darogha . The Vakil of the deceased. His other office of the Vakil seems to have the articles , making of when Akbar was a minor and Bairam Khan acted of an estimate Deputy . After tha, this office lost its importance . The Wazir or Diwan Wazir was the Prime Minister . He was the head of Reish Department . The Wazir was the highest official of the Revenu Department , but in course of time , he came to exercise control over other departments also . Wazir controlled the army , when the king was either incompetent , or a minor or a pleasure - seeker . The post of Wazir was a civil . In abnormal times he was expected to perform military duties . The office of the Wazir got revenue paper and returns and dispatches from the Provinces and the armies in the field . Payments orders had to be signed by him . All payments were made through his department only . Emperor pass orders under his direction . Revenue affairs are settled by him . He had two assistants known as the Diwan - i - Am or Diwan of Salaries and the Diwan - i - Khas or Diwan of the crown - lands. After the death of Aurangzeb. Wazir became virtually the ruler of the state . Mir Bakshi Bakshi was the Paymaster . Pay bills of all civil and military officers were scrutinised and passed by the Paymaster . He also recruited the soldiers . He keeps an account of the number of horses , maintained by the Mansabdars . He was called Imperial Paymaster ; he was responsible for disbursement of salaries and their expenditure when the army was actually fighting . Khan - i - Saman He was in charge of the Emperor's department of manufactures , stores and supply required for military and household purposes . He controlled the personal servants of the Emperor and was also in charge of the daily expenditure , food , stores , tents etc. of the Emperor .On account of the importance of the office , trust - worthy and influential men occupied it . He exercised great influence in certain cases the Khan - i - Saman also became like Wazir . Sadar - us - Sudur He was the Chief Sadar of the Empire . Person with superior character was selected . He was the connecting unit between the King and the people . Guardian of Islamic Law . Spokesman of the Ulema . It was his duty to look into and decide cases relating grants . He was the Almoner of the Emperor . He distributed the money for charitable purposes . There was a Sadar in every province . While sending the Provincial Sadars make familiar them with the names of those who held rent - free lands . Muhtasib He was the censor of public morals . It was his duty to enforce the commands of the Prophet and suppress all those practices , which were unIslamic . The punishment of heretical opinions , blasphemy against the Prophet and neglect of the five daily prayers and observance of Ramzan by Mohammadans also lay within the province of censor . In Aurangzeb reign , their duty is of demolishing newly temples . The Muhtasib was required to go through streets with soldiers and demolish and plunder liquor shops , distilleries and gambling dens . Qazi - ul - Quzat or Chief Qazi He was the highest judicial officer and responsible for administration of justice . He was the judge in religious suits . He appointed Qazis of the Cities , Districts and the provinces . The Muftis helped these Qazis . Diwan - i - Buyutat He registers the wealth and property of the deceased . He was required to calculate the amount due from the deceased to the state and deduct the same from his property .The balance was returned to the heirs of the deceased . His other duties were the fixation of the prices of the articles , making of provision for the royal Karkhanas and the preparation of an estimate of their output and expenditure . Superintendent of Artillery He was a subordinate of Mir Bakshi or Paymaster . The Mir Atish was required to make arrangements for the defence of the Imperial Palace Fort . Due to personal contact with Emperor got great influence . He was in charge of all kinds of artillery . Darogha - i - Dak Chauki He was Superintendent of Intelligence and Posts . He had his agents everywhere . Horses were stationed at various stages for the use of the messengers . He was in charge of news - writers and news carriers . He had to send weekly news . The Imperial Newswriter He was head of intelligence agency and responsible for gathering information from every part of the empire . He also got reports from the newswriters . Other important officials were the Mir - Bahri ( Revenue Secretary ) Mir Barr ( Superintendent of Forests ) Qur Begi ( Lord Standard Bearer ) Akht Begi ( Superintendent of the Royal Stud ) Mushrif ( Chief Admiral and officer of harbours ) Nazir - i - Buyutad ( Superintendent of Imperial workshops ) Mustaufi ( Auditor - General ) 8 ) Awarjah Nawis ( Superintendent of daily expenditure at courts ) Khwan Salar ( Superintendent - of Royal Kitchen ) and Mir Arz ( Officer who presented petitions to the Emperor ) Provincial Administration The Administrative agency in the Provinces of the Mughal Empire was an exact miniature of that of the Central Government . The number of provinces varied from time to time . 24 In the time of Akbar , their number was 15. In the time of jahangir , there were 17 provinces . The number increased to 22 in the time of Shahjahan . In the time of Aurangzeb , the number was 21 only . Subedar Head of the province was known as the Sahib - i - Subah , Subahdar or Nazim . The Diwan , Bakshi , Faujdar , Kotwal , Qazi , sadar , Amil , Bitikchi , Potdar or Khizandar , Waqa - i - Navis , Qanungo and Patwari , assisted him . Provinces were divided into Sarkars and Parganas . All the ad ministration of the province was centralised at the capital town . The Mughals were essentially an urban people and no wonder they neglected the villagers . The Subahdars ere transferred after intervals of two or three years . It was feared that if they continue to work at one place for a long time , they might abuse their powers or become independent . In spite of this , the governors were cruel and rapacious . Diwan Provincial Diwan was the second officer in the province . He was also the rival of the Subahdar . Both the Subahdar and Diwan were to act as a check on each other . The Imperial Diwan or Diwan - i - Ashraf selected the Provincial Diwan . It was his duty to carry out the orders of the Imperial Diwan and also to keep himself in touch with him . He was to collect revenue , try revenue cases and improve cultivation . He had control over the purse of the province and no payment could be made without his sanction . He was required to co - operate with the Subahdar in the administration of the province . If there was a difference opinion between the Subahdar and the Diwan , the matter was referred to the Emperor . Fauidar Faujdars were appointed to help the Subahdar . They helped the Subahdar to maintain law and order in the country and punish the rebellious zamindars . They were also to help the Amils in their work of revenue collection . They were put in charge of important sub - divisions of the province . Their appointment and dismissal was in the hands of the Subahdar . They were commanders of the provincial troops . Sadar His main duty was to supervise the Sayurghals or rent - free lands granted for religious and charitable purposes . He was more independent than the Diwan . Amil He was a man of piety and learning . He could grant lands and allowances on his own initiative . Qazis and Mir Adils worked under him . Amil was a revenue collector and had many duties to perform . He was required to deal very effectively with the rebellious Zamindars . It was his duty to see that the quality of land . He sees the work of measurement of land . He was to supervise the work of revenue collection . He was to examine the registers of the Karkuns , Muquddams and Patwaris . He was required to submit monthly reports . Bakshi He was the paymaster of , the provincial forces . He worked under Mir Bakshi . Bitikchi He acted as a check on the Amil and enjoyed the same status as that of the Amil . He prepared abstracts of revenue every season and was required to send an annual report . He supervises the work of Qanungos . He was required to be a good writer and a skilful accountant . He was also required to be a master of the customs and regulations of his district . Potdar or Khizandar His duty was to receive money from the cultivators and keep the same in the treasury . Whenever a payment was made to him , he issued receipts and kept their account . He was not to make any payment without a voucher signed by the Diwan . Kotwal Kotwal was a police officer of the town , but he enjoyed magisterial powers in certain cases . He was responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the city . He kept watch at night and patrolled the city . He kept a register of houses and frequented buildings . He examined weights and measures and discovered thieves . He made a list of property of those who had no heir and also of the dead and missing persons . He was to see that no woman was burnt against her . will . He was to employ spies from among the obscure residents and observe . the income and expenditure of the various classes . The Ain - i - Akbari describes his duties . He should use his discretion in the reduction of prices and not allow purchases to be made outside the city . Kotwal should check the number of persons in the prison and ascertain answers of the charges against them . Wagal - Navis He was the recorder of occurrences in the province . It was with the help of this person that the Central Government was kept in touch with the affairs of the provinces . Sarkars or Districts Every province was divided into many Sarkars or Districts . The Faujdar was in charge of the Sarkar . He was to carry out the orders of the Governor and also keep himself constantly in touch with them . Parganas or Mahals Every Sarkar was divided into many Parganas or Mahals . In every Pargana , there was a Shiqadar , an Amil , a Potdar and a few Shiqdar was in charge of the administration of the Pargana . His duty was to maintain law and order within his jurisdiction . The Kotwal was the chief administrator of a town . Every city was divided into many wards or mohallas . It has already been pointed out that neither the Provincial Government nor the Central Government interfered with the people living in villages . Every village was considered to be an autonomous commonwealth . Relations between Centre and Provinces Central Government exercised considerable control over the provinces . The various officials in a province were transferred from one province to another after certain intervals . The Mughal Emperors went on tours from time to time and the people could make their complaints in person . The system of Dak Chaukies was made more efficient and thereby the Mughal capital was linked up with various parts of the Mughal Empire . Military Organisation The armed forces were divided into five main divisions , viz . cavalry , elephantry , infantry , artillery and match - lockmen and naval or river craft . The cavalry has six , categories troops . (1) Contingents supplied by tributary Rajas . (2) the Mansabdari troops , which were subject to regulations regarding Dagh ( branding ) and Chera ( descriptive roll ) and muster . (3) the Ahadis were the personal contingents of the emperor and had a separate commandant their own . (4) the Barwardi were those skilled soldiers who could not maintain good horses . (5) the Dakhili whose horses were branded but who were not attached to any Mansabdar . (6) Kumakis were those auxiliaries whose services were temporarily lent to certain Mansabdars . The elephantry , there were seven categories of them . Their allowances varied according to their grade and quality . The infantry were divided into a number of classes . Some of them were mere camp followers and menial servants . Some of them were employed as grooms , sappers , tentmen , etc. There were also real fighters such as archers , musketeers , fencers , wrestlers , gladiators , etc. As regards the artillery , guns and cannon were of different sizes and mobility . Some guns were very heavy and some were very light . Elephants hauled up the Gajnals and light pieces of cannon were car ried on the backs of camels . The artillery was under the special command of the emperor . It was supplied to commanders as and when necessary . Some com manders had match lockmen under them . The Mughals had no navy . The Arab sailors carried on the overseas trade . The Mughal emperors were absolutely helpless against those who could work on the sea . There , was no division of the Mughal army into regiments or other graded divisions . A force 5,000 strong was usually a loose collection of smaller and ungraded units of varying sizes . The soldiers and commanders were required to make their own arrangements for their supplies . There were no uniform and fixed standards of living in barracks or , on battlefields . There was no provision for regular parades . The only means of acquiring military training was employment in hunting , suppression of revolt and actual war . The result was that the soldier deputed in a province became slack and indolent . As the soldiers were not paid regularly , they oppressed the people to get whatever they wanted . Police Organisation The Mughal police organisation is of three types village police , district police and urban police . Mughal authorities allowed the old system coming down from the times of the Hindu rulers to continue . The villagers were made ; responsible for any loss incurred within their limits or any crime committed within their jurisdiction . The Faujdar was responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the district or Sarkar . His primary duties were the policing of the roads , the suppression of disorder of any kind and the collection of the state dues from the rebellious villages with the help of force . The punishments inflicted by them were very often cruel . The Kotwal was in charge of the urban , police . He was required ; to keep a register of houses and roads . He divided the town into quarters and placed an assistant in direct charge of each , quarter . The assistant was required to report daily arrivals and departures . The kotwal kept a small army of spies or detectives . He was required to apprehend thieves and find out the stolen , goods . He fixed local prices . He checked weights and measures . He was required to maintain an inventory of the properties of the persons dying intestate . Public security varied from place to place and time to time . Professional , robbers were always to be found in the , hills , and on the countryside where jungles were in plenty . Finance Finance Department was under Diwan - i - Ala . He appointed a number of officers to help him . 1. Mustaufi acted as the Accountant General of the Empire . He looked into the accounts of all the Departments in the State . 2. Diwan - i - Khalsa looked after the management of crown lands . Diwan - i - Jagir exercised administrative control over Jagirs . 3.Diwan - i - Buyutat looked after State factories called the Kar khanas and heirless properties . 4.Faujih looked after the accounts of the military department . There were Mushrifs for auditing the accounts of different departments sections or individual Karkhanas 5.The provincial Diwans and the staffs under them worked under Diwan - i - Ala . The revenue of the State fluctuated from time to time . There were many sources of income . The Zakat was taken only from the Muslims at the rate of 1/40 of , their property . The duty on imports and exports was 2 % ad valorem for Muslims and 5 % for Hindus . The State also had monopoly of indigo and got some income from it . The revenue from mines , and war booty was known as Khums . The State owned more than 100 Karkhanas . The emperor received valuable presents from his nobles on certain occasions and those were source of income . The State realised tolls and ferry taxes from passengers by road or river . The sales tax was charged on sales in the market . The most fruitful Source of income was the land revenue . The rent from Khalsa lands was realised by the salaried officers of the State . The chief heads of the expenditure were salaries payable to nobles , courtiers , Mansabdars , Qazis and the other staff , the royal household , the maintenance of the army , gifts and rewards conferred by the emperor , cost of building and maintenance of royal buildings , forts , Mosques , tombs , etc. Administration Of Justice Mughal emperor was the fountainhead of justice . His court was the highest court of appeal . Mir Ariz presents the application from people before the emperor . Quazi - ul - Qazut was the highest judicial officer of country and responsible for administration of justice in the country . All other Quazi are subordinate to him . Qazi was primarily a judicial officer . Qazi tried both civil and criminal cases of both Hindus and Muslims . They see their custom and usages while deciding the cases of the both . These quazis are supposed to be just , impartial and a man of good sense . But it is not SO . Qazi was also required to discharge civil , religious and clerical duties . He act as a revenue officer while collecting jiziyas . Muslim law does not grow according to the changing circumstances the country . No emperor can interface in the administration of justice . The court of secular law was prescribed over by Governor , faujdar's and Lotwals . Some times bramhans were appointed to decide cases of Hindus . There are also political courts , which try political nature of cases like rebellion , rioting , theft , robbery , murder etc. Punishments There were three groups of crimes : Offences against god Offence against state Offences against private individual For these there was given four kinds of punishment ( 1 ) Hadd ( 2 ) Tazir ( 3 ) Qisas ( 4 ) Tashir 1.Hadd It was a punishment given for offences against god and it is of severe and rigorous nature 2.Tazir It was punishable by public reprimand , dragging of the offender , boxing of the cars of offender and scourging 3.Qisas It was in the nature of retaliation and the relative of the viction were allowed to demand realisation or compensation 4.Tashir It involved public degradation as like shaving the head of offenders putting him on ass facing the tails covered with dust , and garlanded him with shoes etc. The qazis are supposed to be impartial , just and a person of magnificent qualities . But in the period of Mughals just opposite happened . The department of justice becomes the most corrupt of that time . The qazis were accused of generally misusing their power . Bribery was generally seen . This all made the position of judiciary to the bottom in the times of Mughal . The Mughal Empire was vast and the emperor's were lover of justice . But due to the corruption all the dream of the emperor of a just administration failed to the foot . Criticism of Mughal Administrative System Reference may be made to some of the points of criticism leveled against the Mughal administrative system . 1. Mughal administration was essentially foreign in its character . They generally give preference to the foreigners that is the officials from Persia were given preference to make them high officials in army and others . The high posts were reserved for foreigners ; a very large number of smaller jobs were given to the Indians . 2.Economic and social results of Mughal rule were disastrous to the prosperity and happiness of the people of India . It is pointed that the Mughals left much richer than they found it when they came to this country . They did not send any money to any foreign country This criticism is not fair because they stayed and remained here with the wealth . They had not done as like the British who squandered the wealth here . 3 ) Historian says that the Mughal Government was extremely , limited , materialistic . They say that the socialistic activities were left to the society and not paid any attention to it . But it is not so they had given their eyes of administration on various things like regulation of weights and measures and prices of commodities , stopping forced sati , control of drugs and prostitution etc. Thus the Mughal State was not only a police state but also something more than that . Din - i - Ilahi These are the religious views of Akbar . His object was to establish a national religion , which would be acceptable to the Hindus and Muslims alike . Akbar became the spiritual guide of the nation and saw in the performance of that duty , a means of pleasing God . Certain ceremonials of the Din - i - Ilahi were prescribed . There were four grades of the followers of Din - i - Ilahi . Those grades entailed readiness to sacrifice for the Emperor property , life , honour and religious . Whoever sacrificed all the four , possessed the four degrees and whoever sacrificed one of the four , possessed only one degree . Din - i - llahi contains good points of all religions . The chief exponent of Din - i - Ilahi was Akbar himself . Din - i - llahi was the crowning expression of the idealism of Akbar . It was never forced upon any man . Historian says that Akbar wanted to bring together men who were willing to submit to his spiritual guidance and infuse into them his own catholic spirit and principles of action and not through , coercion . Mughals

View All

Other Pages (82)

  • Top Law Cases

    © 2021 by Copyright™ LAW TOP CASES © 2021 by Copyright™ © 2021 by Copyright™ © 2021 by Copyright™ A practising lawyer, was brutally attacked in his residence in May 1995 Advocate Shanmughsundram Case Mr. Shanmughsundram, a practising lawyer, was brutally attacked in his residence in May 1995, in a southern State. The attack came in full view of his personal staff. The victim was attacked as he was about to file a petition in the High Court against the corrupt activities of a powerful politician. Click Here Geeta and Sanjay Chopra kidnapping case The Geeta and Sanjay Chopra kidnapping case (also known as the Ranga-Billa case) was a kidnapping and murder crime in New Delhi in 1978.It involved the kidnapping and the subsequent murder of siblings Geeta and Sanjay by Kuljeet Singh (alias Ranga Khus) and Jasbir Singh (alias Billa). The children were kidnapped for ransom but, on learning their father was a naval officer, both were killed. Geeta was allegedly raped before being murdered, but forensic evidence could not confirm it. The kidnappers had initially admitted to raping her but later retracted the statement. The two kidnappers were convicted and sentenced to death. Click Here KM Nanavati, at the time of the alleged murder K.M. Nanavati v. State OF Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 Commander K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial. This was not the last Jury trial in India. West Bengal had Jury trials as late as 1973. Jury trials were abolished in most Indian courts by the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure except for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes. Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Click Here Arora's murder L.D. Arora Murder Case L.D. Arora, a senior officer of the Customs Department, was shot dead in 1993, at point blank range, while getting out of his car in front of his residence in the Allahabad town of Uttar Pradesh. Click Here Sheena Bora, Murder case Sheena Bora, an executive working for Mumbai Metro One based in Mumbai, went missing on 24 April 2012. In August 2015 Mumbai Police arrested her mother Indrani Mukerjea, her stepfather Sanjeev Khanna, and her mother's driver, Shyamvar Pinturam Rai, for allegedly abducting and killing her and subsequent burning her corpse. Khanna and Rai confessed to the crime, Click Here Ranbir Singh fake encounter case is an ongoing criminal case in the Uttarakhand state of India, took place on 3 July 2009, and involved fake encounter killings of Ranbir Singh, a 22-year-old MBA graduate in Dehradun. The Ranbir Singh fake encounter case The Ranbir Singh fake encounter case is an ongoing criminal case in the Uttarakhand state of India, took place on 3 July 2009, and involved fake encounter killings of Ranbir Singh, a 22-year-old MBA graduate in Dehradun. Click Here The Suryanelli rape case she was allegedly raped by 37 of the 42 accused persons, over a period of 40 days. The Suryanelli rape case (also called the Suryanelli sex scandal) The Suryanelli rape case (also called the Suryanelli sex scandal) refers to a case of kidnapping and subsequent rape of a 16-year-old school girl from Suryanelli, Kerala, India, in 1996. The girl was allegedly lured with the promise of marriage on 16 January 1996 and kidnapped. She was allegedly raped by 37 of the 42 accused persons, over a period of 40 days. The remaining had abetted the crime. After he was named, the issue was politicised, due to a then upcoming general election. Several women's rights activists like K. Ajitha and Suja Susan George,and women's organisations, like NFIW and Anweshi, have taken an interest in the case. Click Here Ajmer rape case 1992 This case is very old. In 1992, the Ajmer serial gang rape and blackmailing case was one of the biggest cases of sexual abuse in India. The incident took place in Ajmer, a city in the state of Rajasthan. The scandal involved hundreds of young girls, some college students. The news of the scandal came to light after a local letter, 'Navajyoti', published some nude pictures and a story about school students being blackmailed by the local gang. Click Here Jessica Lal Murder case Jessica Lal (5 January 1965 – 30 April 1999) was a model in New Delhi who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at around 2 am on 30 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and influential Congress-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana, as the murderer. In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006. Click Here Kathua rape case The Kathua rape case refers to the abduction, rape, and murder of an 8-year-old girl, Asifa Bano, in Rasana village near Kathua in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in January 2018. A chargesheet for the case has been filed, the accused have been arrested and the trial began in Kathua on 16 April 2018. The victim belonged to the nomad Bakarwal community. She disappeared for a week before her dead body was discovered by the villagers a kilometer away from the village. The incident made national news when charges were filed against eight men in April 2018. The arrests of the accused led to protests by the Panthers Party, along with other local groups. One of the protests, in support of independent CBI probe, was attended by two ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party, both of whom have now resigned. The rape and murder, as well as the support the accused received, sparked widespread outrage. Click Here organised killing Shankar Guha Neogi Murder Case Shankar Guha Neogi, a top labour leader of Central India, was shot dead in September, 1991, while sleeping in his house. On the request of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the CBI moved into action. Click Here Hawala case Terrorist Funding Case A militant was arrested by Delhi Police sometime back along with some foreign currency and objectinable documents, including letters written by a top militant leader from abroad to his associates in India. Click Here The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal consisted of the organised child sexual abuse that occurred in the town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, Northern England from the late 1980s until the 2010s and the failure of local authorities to act on reports of the abuse throughout most of that period. Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials and warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007, has since described it as the "biggest child protection scandal in UK history". Evidence of the abuse was first noted in the early 1990s, when care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers. From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five British-Pakistani men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–16.From January 2011 Andrew Norfolk of The Times pressed the issue, reporting in 2012 that the abuse in the town was widespread, and that the police and council had known about it for over ten years. Click Here © 2021 by Copyright™ Madhya Pradesh State Information Commissioner Issues Arrest Warrant Against Non-Compliant Public Information Officer

  • Indian Laws, Bare Acts



    GOLAK NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1967 GOLAK NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1967 ISSUE In this case, the Petitioner Golak Nath and his family claimed in excess of 500 sections of land in Punjab. Be that as it may, during then the state government made an enactment ‘Punjab Securities and Land Tenures Act’ wherein under this Act, Golak Nath and his family were not permitted to keep in excess of 30 sections of land. Along these lines, Golak Nath recorded a writ request under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution testing the legitimacy of the enactment and that his fundamental right to property was being abused. The issue was whether the parliament has the ability to revise the fundamental rights cherished under Part III of the Constitution of India or not. The candidates contended that the parliament had no capacity to alter fundamental rights, while the respondents contended that our constitution was never implied as static and non-adaptable by the constitution-creators. JUDGMENT In this case, the apex court overruled the judgment given if there should arise an occurrence of Sajjan Singh by most of six: five and held that the revision under Article 368 is ‘law’ inside the importance of Article 13(2). It was additionally governed by the Hon’ble court that Legislature detests the ability to revise Part III of the Constitution to remove or compress fundamental rights. The Supreme Court fought that Fundamental Rights are not amendable as expressed under Article 13 and further more expressed that Article 368 gives the technique to correct the Constitution yet doesn’t present on Parliament the ability to revise the Constitution. Golaknath’s dominant part see mirrors the anxiety and vulnerability in their psyches with respect to the then Parliament’s course. Various enactment that had in some affection penetrated crowded’s FR’s have been passed since the 1950 ‘s Parliament by summoning Article 368. The greater part was suspicious that in the event that Sajjan Singh remained the rule that everyone must follow, at that point a period could come when all the FRs received by our Constituent Assembly would be weakened and in the end stifled by corrections. Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad overruled this conceivable elimination of FR’s as a primary concern and dreading the possible progress of Democratic India to most of Totalitarian India. Consequently, to check this colourable exercise of intensity and spare Democracy from dictatorial actions of Parliament, the larger part held that Parliament can’t revise Fundamental Rights.

View All

Forum Posts (178)

View All
bottom of page