Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s3.79

c10.s3.79

But the general practice seems to be that found in the Kauṭalīya. There was a searching enquiry into the whole case and the punishment was decided on the strength of the evidence.² This is akin to the modern practice of the jury pronouncing guilty or not guilty³ and the judge deciding on the nature of the punishment on the merits of the case.⁴ Again the dramatist Śūdraka whose date is generally accepted as the third century A.D. explains this position in dealing with a criminal case. The sessions judge who is called *adhikāraṇika* speaks of the two-fold *vyavahāra* or case.¹