Pune District Court

Pune District Court administers justice at the district level. It is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction in civil matters. The district court is also a court of Sessions when it exercises its jurisdiction on criminal matters. The district court is presided over by a Principal District and Sessions Judge appointed by the state Government.

The decisions of District court is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Bombay High court. Pune District Court is under administrative control of the High court.

History

Earlier, the chief judicial institution was the village council or panchayat. The panchayat was assembled by order of the gramadhikari or village headman, and an appeal lay from its decision to the deshadhikari or district headman. During British Raj, the jury or panchayat was directed to be considered the main instrument of civil judicature, all suits being referable to these tribunals, whose decisions were final except in cases where corruption or gross partiality might be proved or where the award itself was grossly unjust. An appeal in all cases was allowed to either party. When an appeal was made the Collector was instructed to examine the proceedings of the panchayat and to institute such further inquiries as the case might call for.

The Collector had five judicial amins employed in the city of Poona where from the extent of the population and the spirit of litigation which prevailed the demand for justice was particularly heavy. In June 1822 mamlatdars were empowered to decide causes to the amount of £10 (Rs. 100). The amins, besides deciding causes themselves, aided juries by recording and shaping their proceedings and generally in forming and superintending these courts of arbitration. The period within which suits for debt and personal property might be entertained was limited as in other Deccan districts to twenty-four years, and it extended agreeably to the custom of the country to seventy years for claims founded on the mortgage of vatans. No time was fixed after which appeals were not received, nor were appellants in general compelled to enter into bonds for the payment of a fine if their complaint proved frivolous, though this was done in some few instances when the complaint was suspected to be vexatious. Decrees were executed in the usual manner by distraint of property and personal restraint; if necessary, houses were sometimes sold, but the implements of trade were usually spared unless no other property was forthcoming. No definite rules were established in regard to the period of imprisonment for debt if the debtor failed to satisfy the demand upon him. Creditors requiring the confinement of debtors paid them subsistence money [Chaplin's Report (1822), 70.] After the appointment of a Registrar, the returns both civil and criminal were regularly furnished.

In 1819-20 the agitation of old debts and claims that had their origin during the late government and were in fact an arrear of the Peshwa's file, brought an accumulation of 4603 suits. Of these 241 were settled by panchayat, 461 by rajinama, forty-one by decree of court, and 774 by amins and mamlatdars, being an aggregate of 1517 causes adjusted, besides 2721 dismissed from the non-attendance of plaintiffs. The total disposed of amounted to 4238 and the balance on the file was 365. In the following year (1820–21), the file including those undecided, comprehended 3122 suits of which 113 were settled by panchayat, 568 by rajinama, thirteen by decree of court, and 682 by amins and mamlatdars, making a total of 1376 causes determined exclusive of 470 which went by default. The number remaining on the file at the expiration of the year was 1276. In 1821-22 the file consisted of 5708 suits. Of these 170 were decided by panchayat, 372 by mutual agreement, five by decree of court, and 761 by amins and mamlatdars, making a total of 1308.

The only innovations in criminal justice introduced by the British were closer superintendence and the prohibition of the indefinite confinement of suspected persons by the patils and mamlatdars. There was more system, more scruples, more trials, more acquittals, more certain punishments for all crimes except robbery and for that both less certain and less severe. The power of punishing was taken from the patil and that which was left to the mamlatdar was limited to a fine of 4s. (Rs. 2) and confinement for twenty-four hours. The powers of the Collectors were not less than those of a sarsubhedar except in the article of inflicting capital punishment, but his manner of exercising his power was altogether different. A prisoner was formally and publicly brought to trial. He was asked whether he was guilty, and if he admitted his guilt pains were taken to ascertain that his confession was voluntary. If he denied his guilt witnesses were called without further inquiry. They were examined in the presence of the prisoner, who was allowed to cross-examine them and to call witnesses in his own defence. If there was any doubt when the trial was concluded he was acquitted.

During the first years of British rule, the Poona criminal file was usually heavy and the magisterial department was alone sufficient to occupy the undivided attention of one of the Collector's assistants, aided occasionally by the Collector himself and the Registrar. In 1821 there were fewer cases of murder than in either of the preceding two years, of gang robbery the number of commitments was greater but the convictions fewer. Of burglary there were no cases, which was rather an extraordinary circumstance, but it seems to be owing to the crime having been otherwise classed probably under the cases of considerable theft, which were very numerous, there having been eighty-five commitments and seventy-eight convictions on this account. Petty thefts were also very prevalent, with 463 commitments and 307 convictions. The aggregate of crime was prodigiously great. There were 793 convictions out of 1278 commitments in 1821. This was accounted for by the thieving propensities of the Ramoshis and the vicious habits of the lower orders of a large town like Poona where many persons were out of employment and destitute of visible means of livelihood. The returns of heinous crimes committed during the three years ending 30 June 1822 exhibited fifty-four cases of which the perpetrators were not found. Of these two-thirds were burglaries and gang robberies and the rest apparently cases of murder.^[1]

In 1825 a civil and criminal Judge was for the first time appointed and the Collector was relieved of all judicial work except magisterial. In 1826 the Commissionership was abolished. The general supervision and control exercised by the Commissioner over the administration of justice in the Deccan was transferred to the Judges of the Sadar Divani and Faujdari Adalat, who were designated Commissioners of civil and criminal justice in the last resort for the Deccan. In 1827 the old system of judicature was remodelled and made applicable to the Deccan, which included the Poona district, and native commissioners were appointed to decide civil suits between £50 and £500 (Rs. 500 - 5000) where the parties were neither Europeans nor Americans.

The Zilla Judge was made criminal judge for the trial of certain offences of a heinous nature, the assistant judge was also made assistant criminal judge, and the senior assistant judge was invested with powers of a criminal judge. The Collector and his assistants were made district and assistant magistrates. In 1838 there were three courts in the district at Talegaon, Junnar, and Chakan, and in 1841 there were four courts at Talegaon, Junnar, Chakan, and Indapur. In 1848 there were five courts in the district at Baramati, Junnar, Talegaon, Khed, and Vadgaon. In 1861 assistant magistrates were directed to be called Full-power Magistrates, Subordinate Magistrates First Class, and Subordinate Magistrates Second Class, and the system of trial with the aid of assessors was introduced. In 1862 the court at Baramati was removed to Patas. In 1865 a Small Cause Court was established at Poona with final jurisdiction up to £50 (Rs. 500) and a Registrar's court at Vadgaon.

In 1867 the system of trial by jury in criminal cases was introduced. In 1869 the designation of Principal Sadar Amin was changed into a First Class Subordinate Judge and that of Sadar Amins and munsiffs into Second Class Subordinate Judge. In 1872 the Full-power Magistrates and Subordinate Magistrates First Class and Subordinate Magistrates Second Class were directed to be styled respectively first class magistrates, second class magistrates, and third class magistrates. In 1880 two more courts were established at Indapur and Sasvad for the purpose of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act to bring justice nearer the homes of the people. In 1883 the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Judge was raised to £100 (Rs. 1000).^[1]

References