From
the Pages of History
Bribe Discovered
by J. N. Kachroo
 In olden times soverigns were the fountain
heads of justice in their lands with no codified laws at hand, no works
of Jurisprudence to guide and no prescribed procedures to follow. The dispenser
of justice had to rely on his intelligence, observation, wit and integrity
to give impartial judgements.
History is replete with examples
how fair judgements have been delivered time and again. One such episode
belongs to the reign of the King, Yasaskara (939- 948 AD).
There lived a wealthy citizen
(name not known) during Yasaskara's reign. Somehow bad luck struck him
and he became a pauper. To pay off his debts, he sold off all his property
including his mansion but excluding a well with a ladder, attached to the
house to a rich merchant. This well would fetch rent sufficient to sustain
his wife. Leaving her at a secure place and thinking that she had an assured
source of income, he went abroad in search of employment.
After a pretty long time,
this man returned with a small fortune. To his utter dismay and disbelief,
he found his wife working as a maid in a household. On enquiry, he was
told by his wife that the merchant had turned her out forcibly and
had denied her the rent from the well, saying that he had bought that too.
The shocked man approached many a judge. His claim was rejected by all
on the ground that there was documentary proof of his having sold the well
too. The frustrated man resorted to Prayopavas - fast unto death.
The King, Yasaskara was known
for his just and benevolent rule. The matter was brought to his notice
by the concerned officials. The fasting man was presented to the king.
The disappointed complainant related the whole story. The King commanded
that the merchant and all the judges be called. A court was held with the
king presiding. The complainant repeated the whole story. The judges who
had heard him earlier opined that the man had no claim worthy of consideration
in the face of the records of the officer-in-charge of Registration of
Deeds. The King was not convinced, but could not find any reason or grounds
to refute the judges. He did not commit and pretended lack of interest
in the case.
The king did not dissolve
the court but began to talk casually about the dresses and diamonds that
the councillors were wearing. This was just to divert their attention.
He pointed to the ring that the merchant was wearing. He expressed his
desire to examine it closely. The merchant handed over the ring to the
king, who suddenly stood up and walked out to another apartment, asking
the audience to wait until he returned.
The king sent secretly a
messenger to the merchant's house with instructions to show the ring as
a token to his accountant and ask him to send immediately the account book
of the period pertaining to the execution of the Deed. The accountant sent
the relevant account book. The king examined it and noticed that 1000 Dinnaras
had been paid to the official recorder (Registrar) on that particular date.
The die was cast. The official was called forthwith. The king went back
to the waiting councillors, the merchant and the complainant. The court
was resumed. The king showed the account book to the councillors and convinced
the judges and others that the official recorder was eligible to receive
a very small amount legally for registering the Deed. The rest of the huge
money was paid as a bribe to the official to interpolate 'sa' (lk) (together)
in place of 'ra' (jk) (without) in the deed. The merchant confessed.
The king had not only the
well but the whole house restored to the plaintiff. The merchant was suitably
punished.
| 
Previous
