>AnomieBOT at 01:31, 24 August 2019

2019-08-24T01:31:50Z

New page

{{moresources|date=August 2019}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2019}}
{{Use Indian English|date=August 2019}}
The '''Chingleput Ryots' Case''' was a prominent trial which took place in the then [[Chingleput District (Madras Presidency)|Chingleput District]] of the [[Madras Presidency]] in [[India]] between 1881 and 1883. The action of the then [[Governor of Madras]] [[M. E. Grant Duff]] provoked outrage all over the Presidency. Indian nationalists frequently cited the case as an example of the alleged unjust rule of the [[British Raj]].

== Origin ==

In May 1881, a group of [[Ryot|''ryots'']] in the then [[Chingleput District (Madras Presidency)|Chingleput district]] accused an Indian ''[[tahsildar]]'' of extortion and filed a case against him in a local court. The ''tahsildar'' tried to threaten the ''ryots'' with dire consequences and allegedly got the [[District Collector]] of Chingleput to prosecute them for [[perjury]]. However, the ''tahsildar'' was still convicted for tampering with official records and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The ''tahsildar'' filed a fresh appeal in the [[Madras High Court]] resulting in the reduction of the sentence from two to one year. Dissatisfied, the tahsildar appealed once again against the verdict. Though the Madras High Court refused to entertain a second appeal, the Governor of Madras intervened and issued an order on 31 May 1883 acquitting the tahsildar due to lack of evidence

{{quote|The Governor in Council, after considering the further opinions expressed by the Judges of the High Court in this peculiar case, has come to the conclusion that it will be most consistent with justice to give the accused the benefit of the doubt raised by the subsequent evidence, and he is accordingly pleased under Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, to remit the remainder of the sentence}}

The District Collector of Chingleput who had allegedly shielded the corrupt ''tahsildar'' later acted as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of Madras.

== Reaction ==

The Governor was heavily condemned and criticized by the Indian press for acquitting the corrupt ''tahsildar''. ''[[The Hindu]]'', which had supported the ''ryots'' throughout the trial and even collected money to fight the case on their behalf, charged him with allowing the affair "to cast dirt on the fair face of British Justice".<ref name="thehindu_willingtostrike">{{cite news|title=WILLING TO STRIKE AND NOT RELUCTANT TO WOUND|url=http://www.hindu.com/th125/stories/2003091300770200.htm|date=13 September 2003|author=S. Muthiah|work=[[The Hindu]]|authorlink=S. Muthiah}}</ref>

The incident was brought before the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] and [[John Eldon Gorst|Sir John Gorst]], the [[Under-Secretary of State for India]] was questioned by [[James Tuite]], the British Member of Parliament for [[North Westmeath (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmeath North]] in February 1887.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

;Sources

* {{cite web|title=INDIA (MADRAS)—THE COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT|url=http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1887/feb/28/india-madras-the-collector-of-chingleput|date=28 February 1887|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]}}

[[Category:Indian case law]]
[[Category:Madras Presidency]]
[[Category:Trials in India]]
[[Category:1881 in India]]
[[Category:1882 in India]]
[[Category:1883 in India]]
[[Category:1881 in British India]]
[[Category:1882 in British India]]
[[Category:1883 in British India]]

Chingleput Ryots' Case - Revision history

>AnomieBOT at 01:31, 24 August 2019