Page:Hyderabad in 1890 and 1891; comprising all the letters on Hyderabad affairs written to the Madras Hindu by its Hyderabad correspondent during 1890 and 1891 (IA hyderabadin1890100bangrich).pdf/31

Page 23 Husain to be syncronous with that of the settlement of the Salar Jung liability-accounts. Poor Afsul! Some one seems to have "pilled" him to his heart's content. As for the latter part of the above quotation, where is the relevancy, I ask, of the remarks contained therein? Further on in the judgment it is said: "Gaya Persad's evidence fully shows that he had gone to assist the Pleader in behalf of the accused. Under such circumstances, the evidence given by him is of no use to the accused." How the evidence given by one who went to assist the accused's Pleader could be of no use the "learned" Judge best knows himself. So much about the sins of commission. Now I shall say a few words about those of omission. Here too Afsul Husain does not come off with flying colours. You will see from the foregoing that I have studiously avoided saying anything anent the merits of the case itself. But now it becomes absolutely necessary to refer to a point which in the trial of Jaya Rao and others was intentionally or not I cannot say-altogether lost sight of. And the point is the question-whether the Treasury (as distinguished from the Accountant-Generals Office )was quite guiltless (in a criminal sense) or unculpable (in a departmental sense). There is no doubt that the cheques were fictitious. But in favour of whom were they cashed and why? The cheques of the Accountant-Generals Office are payable to the person named therein or to his order, and not to bearer. Now, it is an established fact that in few cases a first class Bank would undertake to receive cheques payable to a particular person or "to order." But when once the responsibility is undertaken, it becomes the duty of the Bank to satisfy itself of the genuineness of the endorsements on the cheques before they are cashed. What then were the steps, I ask, taken by the Treasury to assure itself that the endowments on the reverse of the fictitious cheques were genuine and bore the signatures of the persons in whose favour they were "drawn"? The failure to ascertain the genuineness or