Verse 8.192

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

निक्षेपस्यापहर्तारं तत्समं दापयेद् दमम् ।
तथोपनिधिहर्तारमविशेषेण पार्थिवः ॥ १९२ ॥

nikṣepasyāpahartāraṃ tatsamaṃ dāpayed damam |
tathopanidhihartāramaviśeṣeṇa pārthivaḥ || 192 ||

In all cases the king shall make the appropriator of a deposit pay a fine equal in value to it; also the appropriator of a friendly loan.—(192)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The preceding verse has laid down the punishment to be like that of the thief; under that rule there are two alternatives—corporeal punishment and fine equal in value to the property involved—to he determined according to the caste of the accused. So that in the case of castes other than the Brāhmaṇa, it would, under the said rule, he open to the king to inflict either of the two forms of punishment. And it is this possibility that is precluded by the present verse, which restricts the punishment to fine only; so that from among the penalties inflicted on thieves, what may be added to the fine is only admonition or reprimand, and not mutilation and other corporeal punishments.

It will not be right to take the present verse as precluding corporeal punishment from the case of Brāhmaṇas, who also would be subject to both kinds of alternative punishments sanctioned by the preceding verse. Because corporeal punishment has been already generally prohibited in the case of Brāhmaṇas;—in such texts as ‘one shall not strike a Brāhmaṇa’ (8.380).

‘Upanidhi’ here stands for what is used through friendship.

‘In all cases,’—i.e., irrespectively of the nature of the property or the caste of the person involved.

Others have given a technical meaning to the term ‘upanidhi’; but that meaning is applicable elsewhere, not here. Because, in the absence of any convention, fixing the technical sense of a term, the right course is to take it in its ordinary sense. This same ‘upanidhi’ is going to be mentioned again as ‘friendly loan’ (under 196).—(192)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse appears to be a mere repetition of 191. According to Medhātithi, 191 lays down two alternative punishments—corporal punishment (thief’s penalty) and fine; and 192 excludes the ‘thief’s punishment’ by specifying the fine only. He repudiates the explanation that has been attributed to him by Hopkins—viz., 192 is for the sake of freeing the Brāhmaṇa from the corporal punishment prescribed in 191. Nor is there anything in Medhātithi to show that he takes 192 as referring to fresh offences,—a view that has been attributed to him by Buhler.—Both these views are found in Kullūka.

‘Upanidhi’—‘Sealed deposit’ (Kullūka);—‘something lent in a friendly spirit’ (Medhātithi, who repudiates, in the present context, the technical meaning of ‘sealed deposit.’)

‘Aviśeṣeṇa’—‘Irrespective of the character of the property or the caste of the person’ (Medhātithi);—‘irrespective of caste’ (Nārāyaṇa and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 92), which adds the following explanation:—The reiteration of ‘fine equal in value to the deposit’ here—to the exclusion of the ‘thiefs penalty,’ with which it has been coupled in the preceding verse,—should be understood as meant for the case where the misappropriator of the deposit is a Brāhmaṇa. The terms ‘tathā’ and ‘aviśeṣeṇa’ mean that all that has been said in regard to the misappropration of the deposit, should he understood to be applicable to that of the Upanidhi also,—the misappropriation of both standing on the same footing.

It is quoted also in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 85);—in Kṛtyakalpataru (83b);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 113a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.190-192)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.190.