Pub Date : 2020-02-20DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0010
Michael D. Metelits
Chapter 10 explores some hanging questions. The issue of Crawford’s guilt or innocence is essentially moot today, but a number of points that never arose before the special commission merit consideration. The chapter comments on the practical difficulties that the Indian Penal Code of 1860 imposed on the task of successful prosecution of official corruption back in the colonial past. Beyond comments on the Penal Code of 1860, Chapter 10 also explores the relationship between decision making at various levels of governance, and certain qualities of the British imperial rule in the Bombay Presidency. This discussion stems from the facts that (1) the Crawford Tribunal found Crawford innocent of all counts of corruption, (2) the secretary of state for India concurred with the tribunal’s finding, and (3) even though Crawford was found innocent of bribery, mamlatdars were condemned as guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of bribery. Bribery of whom? The presumption was that money had been paid for favours, but the tribunal found that Crawford had received none of it, and Crawford was found not to have done the mamlatdars any favours, so had bribery taken place at all?
{"title":"Conclusions","authors":"Michael D. Metelits","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 10 explores some hanging questions. The issue of Crawford’s guilt or innocence is essentially moot today, but a number of points that never arose before the special commission merit consideration. The chapter comments on the practical difficulties that the Indian Penal Code of 1860 imposed on the task of successful prosecution of official corruption back in the colonial past. Beyond comments on the Penal Code of 1860, Chapter 10 also explores the relationship between decision making at various levels of governance, and certain qualities of the British imperial rule in the Bombay Presidency. This discussion stems from the facts that (1) the Crawford Tribunal found Crawford innocent of all counts of corruption, (2) the secretary of state for India concurred with the tribunal’s finding, and (3) even though Crawford was found innocent of bribery, mamlatdars were condemned as guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of bribery. Bribery of whom? The presumption was that money had been paid for favours, but the tribunal found that Crawford had received none of it, and Crawford was found not to have done the mamlatdars any favours, so had bribery taken place at all?","PeriodicalId":209194,"journal":{"name":"The Arthur Crawford Scandal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122044977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-20DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0002
Michael D. Metelits
Chapter 2 examines the manner in which the Government of Bombay, convinced of Crawford’s guilt, sought testimonial and documentary evidence, mainly through Indian officials called ‘mamlatdars’. Those officials had to confess under oath that they had paid money for career favours. At law, this constituted bribery of a government official. Confessing this in court under oath was contrary to their best interests, but the presidency government found a way to secure their testimony. Nevertheless, the process of making an evidentiary case was fraught with problems.
{"title":"Spreading the Net","authors":"Michael D. Metelits","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199498611.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 examines the manner in which the Government of Bombay, convinced of Crawford’s guilt, sought testimonial and documentary evidence, mainly through Indian officials called ‘mamlatdars’. Those officials had to confess under oath that they had paid money for career favours. At law, this constituted bribery of a government official. Confessing this in court under oath was contrary to their best interests, but the presidency government found a way to secure their testimony. Nevertheless, the process of making an evidentiary case was fraught with problems.","PeriodicalId":209194,"journal":{"name":"The Arthur Crawford Scandal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121497253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：