Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c4.s2.30

c4.s2.30

Firstly, he was not without any control from above *i.e.*, the king. Once a *gāmabhojaka* spoke ill of the villagers to the king, but on their innocence being proved, the slanderer's (*pesuññakārakassa*) possessions were given over to them and he was made their slave and finally turned out of the village.⁵ Another headman was properly punished by the king, as he, with his own people, went away to the forest, deliberately leaving the villagers at the mercy of robbers.⁶ That his judicial powers also were restricted in character is seen from the fact, that he could not deal with complicated law-suits arising in his village,⁷ nor could he inflict graver punishments. We see from the *Gāmapicaṇḍa Jātaka*,⁸ that in judicial matters the final authority largely rested with the king or his Court. It also proves that the administration of justice was one of the essential links⁹ that bound the villages to the Central Government. If one of the litigant parties in a village wanted redress at the hands of the king or his Court, inspite of suitable arrangements in the village itself, he could do so, and the case had to be decided accordingly. If the other party refused to agree to such a course he was liable to punishment. "Now this people," so we are told, "have a custom that they pick up a bit of stone or a potsherd, and say, 'Here's the king's officer: come along'. If any man refused to go, he is punished."¹⁰