Verse 8.181-182

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

यो निक्षेपं याच्यमानो निक्षेप्तुर्न प्रयच्छति ।
स याच्यः प्राड्विवाकेन तत्निक्षेप्तुरसंनिधौ ॥ १८१ ॥
साक्ष्यभावे प्रणिधिभिर्वयोरूपसमन्वितैः ।
अपदेशैश्च संन्यस्य हिरण्यं तस्य तत्त्वतः ॥ १८२ ॥

yo nikṣepaṃ yācyamāno nikṣepturna prayacchati |
sa yācyaḥ prāḍvivākena tatnikṣepturasaṃnidhau || 181 ||
sākṣyabhāve praṇidhibhirvayorūpasamanvitaiḥ |
apadeśaiśca saṃnyasya hiraṇyaṃ tasya tattvataḥ || 182 ||

When requested to restore the deposit, if the trustee do not restore it to the depositor,—then, on the departure of that depositor, in the event of there being no witnesses, the judge shall actually deposit gold (with the trustee) through spies of proper age and appearance, under some pretexts, and then ask him to restore it.—(181-182)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 8.181-182)

From what has gone before people might be led to think that in a case where there are no witnesses, recourse should at once be had to ordeals;—and it is to guard against this that the author adds these texts.

The meaning is that in the case of non-payment of debt and other disputes, the judge has recourse to ordeals as soon as it is found that no witnesses are available;—but this is not what should be done in the case in question; in such cases the character of the man is tested through spies. If, on being so tested, it is found that the man does not trip in his dealings, then he shall not be disgraced With having to undergo an ordeal. If, on the other hand, he does trip, then it is only right that he should be suspected of having misappropriated the deposit; and in this case he should be made to undergo ordeals; because the mere fact of his having misappropriated one deposit does not necessarily prove that he had misappropriated another deposit also; for it is just possible

that on account of some urgent need he might have been led to commit misappropriation in one case, while in another ease, either by reason of his needs having been supplied or on account of repentance, he might have restored it honestly.

The present verses are to be taken as forbidding the course of hurriedly making the trustee undergo ordeals; and they are meant to point out a new line of evidence. Then again even though in the case of the man misappropriating the judge’s deposit, there is immediate punishment, yet it does not follow that the same punishment shall be inflicted upon him in connection with the alleged, but uncertain, misappropriation of that belonging to the plaintiff. For if such penalty were to be inflicted even in cases of uncertainty, there would be no laws laying down the means of arriving at certain conclusions. Hence it has been considered necessary that decisions should be arrived at by means of reasonings.

For these reasons verse 181 should not be taken in its literal sense (that the man shall be made to pay ‘yācyaḥ’); but it should be interpreted in a different manner, being construed along with verse 182.

The verbal construction of the verse we explain now as follows:—‘on the departure of that depositor’—by whom the deposit had been placed,—‘he shall be asked by the judge to restore it.’

There being no witnesses,—when the depositor asks for the restoration of his deposit and the trustee denies the deposit, saying ‘you never deposited anything with me’—and being appealed to by the depositor, the king shall not at once put the trustee to the ordeal;—what then shall he do?—The judge shall deposit his own or some one else’s gold or silver with the man, through spies, and then ask for its restoration.

The term ‘judge,’ here stands for any person who has been deputed by the king to investigate the ease.

“Is he to be asked directly by the Judge himself?”

No; it should be done through spies,—those same through whom the deposit has been placed.

‘Of propet age and appearance’;—they should he of ‘proper age,’ so that they may not be minors; for if such minors were to go to transact business, the man would suspect that they had been put up by others to cheat him; whereas if they were full-grown people, no such suspicion would arise.

Similarly they should be of ‘proper appearance’;—in the case of some people their very appearance is indicative of their fickle nature; that appearance is to be regarded as ‘proper’ which indicates freedom from love or hatred.

Thus the meaning comes to be that the spies chosen should be such that the trustee may not suspect that the whole business was a trick to entrap him.

‘Under some pretexts.’—That is, they may say, for instance,—‘The man who is depositing this good is leaving the city from fear of harrassment by the king, that is why I am placing this deposit with you.’ This untrue representation is what is called ‘pretext’ here.

All this is to be done, when the original depositor (the original plaintiff) is not present.—(182)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verses 8.181-182)

These verses are quoted in Aparārka (p. 664);—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 94), which explains them to mean that—‘If the person who calls himself the Depositor demands the deposit from the person called the Deposit-holder,—and the latter denies it, saying ‘nothing was deposited with me’,—and there are no witnesses to the transaction;—then the king, with a desire to ascertain the facts, should have recourse to the following stratagem:—Through spies of the proper age and appearance, trustworthy in word and appearance, he should by some pretext deposit his own gold with the accusal person;—after some days, he should have that deposit demanded from him.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.181-184)

Nārada (2.4, 7).—‘If the depositary fails to restore the deposit to the depositor as he ought, he shall be compelled by forcible means, to restore it, after his guilt has been proved by ordeals or other modes of proof. The wicked man who does not restore a deposit, on being asked to do so by the depositor, shall be punished by the King. If the deposit has been lost, he shall make good its value.’

Bṛhaspati (12.13).—‘He who, after receiving a deposit, denies the fact, and is convicted by the evidence of witnesses or ordeal, shall be compelled to give up the deposit and to pay a fine equal in amount to the same.’

Yājñavalkya (2.66).—‘If on the depositor demanding it, the deposit be not restored, on account of its having been lost, the depositary should be made to pay to the depositor the value of the deposit, and also a fine of the same amount.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 664).—‘If after having received a deposit, one fails to restore it on being asked to do so, he should he punished and compelled to restore it.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Aparārka, p. 664).—‘If after having received a deposit, the depositor refuses to restore it and dishonestly denies the deposit, he should be arrested and compelled to restore the deposit and also pay a fine.’