Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/42

it had to be postponed from time to time. On December 31, 1872, an order was passed (and it bore my initials) that the accused should be entered in the Ferari list, the list of absconding prisoners. As a matter of fact the man had not absconded, and the object of the order was to avoid giving an explanation for the long pendency of the case. It was an artifice that was sometimes resorted to by the ministerial officers to save themselves from censure. In the case of a very young and inexperienced officer like myself, delay in the disposal of cases would be regarded by the superior authorities as a fault of the Peshkar (or ministerial servant) rather than of the officer, whom he is expected to guide and lead in matters of office procedure. I signed the order along with a heap of other papers. My attention was not drawn to it; nor did I know it or understand the significance of the order. When called upon to give an explanation about another case I inadvertently offered an explanation about this. If I had knowingly signed the order and knew its significance, such a mistake would have been impossible; for then I would have at once remembered that, the man’s name being in the Ferari list, no explanation could possibly be required. The Magistrate called for the records, and asked me for a full explanation, which I gave. He wrote to the District Judge, who addressed the High Court, and the Government was moved. A Commission was appointed under Act xxxix of 1850 to enquire into the whole matter.

The Commission consisted of three European officers, Mr. H. T. Prinsep, who afterwards rose to be a Judge of the High Court, Mr. H. J. Reynolds, who subsequently became a member of the Board of Revenue, and Major Holroyd of the Assam Commission. There were fourteen charges, but substantially they resolved themselves into two, namely, that I had dishonestly entered Judisthir’s name in the Ferari list, knowing that he was not an absconding prisoner, and, secondly, that, when called for an explanation, I had falsely pleaded ignorance and said that I knew nothing at all about it. There was a further charge, that I had dishonestly disposed of the case about Judisthir and acquitted him to avoid an explanation.

I prayed for the hearing of the case in Calcutta, and, further, that I should be provided by Government with counsel for my defence. Both the prayers were rejected. I was defended by Mr. Montriou, and the Commission permitted me personally to put in a few arguments at the end of the trial. Some of my friends had suggested that Mr. W. C. Bonnerjea, who was then rising to the position which