Hindu Administrative Institutions c10.s6.26

c10.s6.26

In the *Arthaśāstra* occurs, परस्पराभियोगे चैषामत्तमाः परोक्ताः दशबन्धं दद्युर्वराः पञ्चबन्धम् । (Bk. iii, Sec. 11.) Dr. Shama Śāstri translates : ‘ Creditors guilty of *parokta* shall pay a fine of ten times the amount : but if incapable to pay so much, they shall at least pay five times the amount sued for.’ On this he remarks in the footnote (p. 216 of his Translation) thus : ‘ Since the *pañchabandha* must be less than *daśabandha*, the interpretation of *pañchabandha* as *pañchamāṁśa*, one-fifth by Vijñāneśvara in his commentary on verse 171, ii (Yājñavalkya), cannot be accepted.’ How Vijñāneśvara is right and Shama Śāstri faulty is seen from the It would be interesting to examine who were eligible and who were ineligible to depose as witnesses, and how they played their part in the court.¹ One curious feature of the administration of justice was to get at the facts of the case by means of official secret agents appointed for the purpose. This coupled with the evidence of the witnesses would go to decide a case. A case cannot be dismissed on the plea of the absence of witnesses.² Generally three honest and truthful witnesses were asked to depose. There may be certain cases like the one relating to debts where two witnesses were enough; but never was the deposition of one witness taken with approval. The following is the categorical list of those who were ineligible for deposition:³ brother-in-law, companion, prisoner, creditor or debtor, enemy, dependant,