Administrative System of the Marathas c23.s7.6

c23.s7.6

The Patil under the Marathas was responsible for the discovery and restoration of all stolen properties within his jurisdiction, failing which he had to make adequate compensation for the loss. He could however escape this by tracing the thief to the next village when the responsibility was transferred to the headman and the inhabitants of that village. In Apstamba's time¹⁸ village officers appointed by the king were charged with similar duties. They must protect a town from thieves in every direction to the distance of one krosa from each village. (They must protect the country to the distance of one krosa from each village.) They must be made to repay what is stolen within these (boundarie ).¹⁹ When Kautilya wrote (4th century B.C.), vendors of wine were charged with similar responsibility with regard to the property of their drunken customers. "When customers under intoxication lose any of their things, the merchants of the shop," says Kautilya, "shall not only make good the loss, but also pay an equivalent fine."²⁰ Similarly the Superintendent of Tolls had to make good whatever had been lost by merchants in the part of the country under his charge.²¹ Kautilya is not silent about a similar responsibility of the village headman. "Having made the value, etc., of their merchandise known (to the headman of the village), traders shall halt in some part of a village. When any part of their merchandise which has not been truly sent out of the village during the night has been stolen or lost, the headman of the village shall make good the loss." Kautilya further lays down that "whatever of their merchandise is stolen or lost in the intervening places between two villages, the Superintendent of pasture-lands shall make good. If there are no pasture-lands in such places, the officer called *Chorarajjuka* shall make good the loss. If the loss of merchandise occurs in such parts of the country as are not provided even with such security (a chorarajjuka), the people in the boundaries of the place shall contribute to make up the loss. If there are no people in the boundaries, the people of five or ten villages of the neighbourhood shall make up the loss."[22] Under the Mauryas, therefore, not only the village headman, but in certain cases the villagers had to compensate for any property stolen or lost in their neighbourhood. When the Vishnu Samhita was compiled (not earlier than the 3rd century A. D.) the duty of compensating persons who had been robbed devolved on the king. "Having recovered goods stolen by thieves let him restore them entire to their owners, to whatever caste they may belong. If he has been unable to recover them, he must pay (their value) out of his own treasury."[23] Narada, who possibly wrote in the sixth century A. D., however, lays down that "he on whose ground a robbery has been committed must trace the thieves to the best of his power, or else he must make good what has been stolen, unless the foot marks can be traced from that ground (into another man's ground). When the foot marks after leaving that ground are lost and cannot be traced any further, the neighbours, inspectors of the road, and governors of that region shall be made responsible for the loss."[24] This certainly offers the closest approximation to the Maratha system, which can be very well illustrated by a comparison with an old Marathi paper in which a similar process has been described.²⁵ The Patil as the Police Magistrate of the village naturally became responsible for the recovery of all stolen property, but the real work of tracing out the thieves fell upon the Ramoshis, a criminal tribe, charged with the police work of the village. The compensation-money paid to the party robbed, was generally raised by levying a fine on the Ramoshis.