Verse 8.59

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

यो यावद् निह्नुवीतार्थं मिथ्या यावति वा वदेत् ?? ।
तौ नृपेण ह्यधर्मज्ञौ दाप्यौ तद्द्विगुणं दमम् ?? ॥ ५९ ॥

yo yāvad nihnuvītārthaṃ mithyā yāvati vā vadet ?? |
tau nṛpeṇa hyadharmajñau dāpyau taddviguṇaṃ damam ?? || 59 ||

If one falsely denies a debt, or if the other falsely demands it,—these two, proficient in dishonesty, should be made by the king to pay a fine double that sum.—(59)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In a case where on the strength of other proofs it has boon decided that the creditor had lent only 5,000, while the sum entered in the document is 10,000; from this it is understood that, the creditor has been dishonest in his dealings, having thought that, as other kinds of evidence would be admissible only for one year, he would get what he would prove by moans of the documentary evidence only; and being found to be dishonest, he should ho fined double the amount. But in a case where there may he a doubt as to whether the fraud had been committed intentionally, or only through carelessness, the fine shall be only ten per cent.

Similarly in the case of the defendant also. It is not that if he denies the whole claim, the tine shall be ten per cent, and if he denies it only partly, then double the amount. As a matter of fact, when they are found to be dealing dishonestly, they shall he fined double the amount; while if their behaviour is found to be due to either negligence or poverty, the fine shall be only ten per cent.

When ‘one’—i.e., the debtor—‘denies the debt,’ and when the other, i.e., the creditor—‘falsely’—dishonestly—demands it;—then both these, the creditor as well as the debtor would be ‘proficient in dishonesty,’ and should be fined ‘double the sum’;—‘the sum’ standing for what is denied; so that the sense is that the fine shall be double the sum that was denied.

The addition of the term ‘proficient in dishonesty’ indicates that the penalty is imposed for proved dishonesty.—(59)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Verses 59-61 are not omitted by Medhātithi, as wrongly asserted by Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 77), which adds the following explanation:—When the defendant, through dishonest motives, denies the claim,—or when the plaintiff prefers a false claim,—both those are dishonest dealers, and they should be punished with a fine, which is the double of the amount of the claim;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 34), which says that this rule refers to cases where the culprit is very wealthy;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (80b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 77).—‘He who makes a false claim should be made to pay twice the value of the claim.’

Yama (Do., p. 78).—‘If the debtor, even though possessed of the requisite means, does not repay the debt, through dishonesty, he should be compelled by the King to pay, having realised from him double of his debt.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 78).—‘If the debtor, even though possessed of the requisite means, does not repay the debt, through dishonesty, he should be compelled by the King to repay, after taking from him the twentieth part of the claim as fine.’

Yājñavalkya (2.11).—‘If a party makes a false statement, and the other party proves it to he so, then the former shall pay to the King a fine equal to the amount of the claim. The man who makes a false claim shall pay to the King a fine equal to double the amount of the claim.’