PATNA CASE 1777-1779

One Shahbaz Beg a company’s servant had no son so he called his nephew
Bahadur Beg to live with him in India.

The nephew lived in Kabul and it was so said that the servant wanted to make
him a part of the property he owned in India but before he could do so he died
in 1776.

Therefore, a conflict started to brew between the nephew and his widow
Nadira Begum.

The widow claimed the property as a gift executed by her deceased husband
on the other hand the nephew claimed the entire property as the adopted son
of the deceased.

So he filed a case in the Patna Provincial Council (diwani court ) against the
window of the deceased and charged her for the embezzlement of the
property.
 Conflicts
 The widow of the deceased was insulted and humiliated
and the house was locked.
 The widow approached the Supreme Court to file a case
against the nephew the Qazi and the Muftis involved.
 Whether a person living outside Calcutta can be
prosecuted and can there be any legal detention of
the law officers at the time of their discharge of their
duties during their judicial capacity.
 The nephew was a farmer so he directly or indirectly
comes under the purview of the company’s rule
 The Patna court had no authority to delegate its powers
to the Qazis and the Muftis.
 The law officers were tried for doing acts which were
outside their legal limits .
 Judgements
 The Patna case exposed the judicial
administration of the Company.
 It illustrated the defects of the Adalat System
started by Warren Hastings in Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa.
 The Supreme Court awarded three lac rupees
to the widow which seemed quite inappropriate.
 It put forward the relation of the Supreme
Court with that of the officials of the Adalats.
 A lesson was learnt for further administration of
justice.
 Cossijurah Case 1779-1780
 One Zamindar the Raja was heavily indebted to
Caussinaut Babu wherein he approached him
for the very same.
 He approached the Revenue Board as well but
then being fed up he sued him at the Supreme
Court.
 He showed in his affidavit that the Rajah was one
of the servants of the Company.
 In the meantime the case was put up by the
general council and it ruled that none farmers
and the landholders were under any kind of the
jurisdiction of the council.
Conflicts
 The rajah went into hiding the court issued the
writ of the capias (arrest warrant) against him.
 Cossijurah filed a case against the council .
 It was declared that they did all the acts in their
official capacity .
 This led to the effect that the council issued a
notice to all the outside territories not to pay
any heed to the case at all.
 Judgements
 This case brought out the defects in the
Charter by the Supreme Court at Calcutta.
 It didn't specify the position of the Governor
General Council nor did it demarcate the
power of the Court.
 In this case the conflict between the Supreme
Court and that of the Council was evident .
 It brought out the inherent weakness of the
Regulating Act through the conflict of the
Supreme Court and that of the Council.
 Nandkumar Case 1775
 He was one of influential tax official of Bengal
who filed a case of bribery against Warren
Hastings due to the instigation by the majority
of the council.
 Few days later some Mohan Prasad filed a case of
forgery and bribery against Nandkumar in the
Supreme Court.
 In order to insult him a bit more Hastings
instituted another case against him.
Conflicts
 The court rejected his application for grant of
leave.
 This was treated as “the miscarriage” of the
way justice was served and hence was soundly
criticised.

 The act under which Nandkumar was executed

never promulgated in Calcutta.

 The offence for which Nandkumar was executed

was way before when the Supreme Court was
even formed.
 Judgements
 Nandkumar’s case was tried in front of twelve
jury members and was found “guilty” and
consequently the Supreme Court awarded him
death penalty for the same under the Forgery
Act of the Britain of 1728.

 Justice Impey acted unjustly in this case.

 This trial has been recognised as the “judicial

murder” which rudely shocked the conscience of
mankind.
THANK YOU

Presentation by
Tuba Aftab
B.A LLB (Hons)
I st Year