The Patna Case[1]is one of the very interesting case in the field of Indian History. The Patna Case took place in years of 1777, 1778 and 1779. The Patna Case took eminent place in the Indian legal history because it had reveled the of the system judicial administration. This case brought the light on the involving conflict and disatification among the Supreme court and the supreme council. This case had made as the lesson learned that had became the basis of the more further reorganization or reorientation in the operation or management of justice that will taken in future.

Facts of The Case:
v Shahbaz Beg Khan belonged to KABUL and came to India and joined a company Army and then he got retired. After that he earned extensive riches and settled at Patna and married one Nadirah Begum.
v Since, he called his nephew Bahadur beg from Kabul to live with him.He additionally communicated his longing to adopt Bahadur Beg as his son and make him the heir of his property and then to retire from the world.
v But before he could give impact to his wish, he died in December, 1776.
v Shahbaz Beg left impressive property behind him which led to battle for property between and the nephew. Each one of them claimed the whole property of the expired.
v Bahadur Beg (the Nephew) filed a petition the Provincial Council at Patna, asserting the property in the limit of being the adopted son the deceased. He also requested the court to protect the property from being abused by the widow of the deceased. The Nadirah Begum designates the Mohammedan Native Law officers i.e. Mufti and Kazi to find out his claim in the property.

v The widow Nadirah Begum,then again, asserted her claim to the said property on the basis of three documents are:
Dower – Deed (Meharnama)
Gift – Deed (Hibanama)
Acknowledgment (Ikrarnama)

v The Provincial Court of Patna directed the Kazi and Mufti set up a stock of the property and gather and seal it till an official choice. These native law officers were also to report to the Court about the separate claims of the parties after ascertaining the facts of the case.

v In compatibility of the Provincial Council's orders, the Kazi and Mufti went house of the deceased and gathered the property and took stock of it.

v During the investigation they abused Nadirah Begum as a result of which, she left the house and took shelter in a "Durgah".

v The methodology followed by the law –officers in this case was most irregular. After inquiry the case they defer their report to the Patna Council. on the basis of evidence, the Kazi reported on January 20, 1777, that widow's agent (counsel) had neglected to deliver the dower deed in this manner, there was nothing invalidate the attestations of Bahadur Beg that the sum of Rs.1200/- as dower was already paid by the deceased to Nadirah Begum during his life- time. As respects the other two documents , namely, the gift-deed and acknowledgment-deed, the law-officers recommended that they were invalid being forged and, therefore, the property of the deceased should be divided into four shares,out of which three should be given to Bahadur Beg as illustrative of his dad in India and the fourth offer ought to be go Nadirah Begum in accordance with the Mohammedan Law of succession.

v The Provincial Council of Patna acknowledged the report of the Kazi and Mufti and requested the division of the property in like manner. in any case, aggrieved by the decision of the Provincial Council,Nadirah Begum favored an interest to Sadar Diwani Adalat at Calcutta which comprised Governor – General and Council be that as it may, the interest stayed pending for quite a while with no activity.subsequently the dowager brought an activity against Bahadur Beg, Kazi and Mufti for assault, battery , false imprisonment and penetrate coercively into her house and other secret injuries and allege damages to the chorus of rupees six lakhs.

v Issues of The Case:
v Whether Bahadur Beg, who lived outside calcutta was exposed to the administration of Supreme Court or not.
v whether the law officer's could be litigated or indicted for their acts done during their legal proficiency or not.

Judgement of The Case:
The court censured the way in which the Kazi and Mufti had represented determining realities.All the procedure in the board were ex-parte with no I see being given to the begum. no normal preliminary was held and witnesses had not been analyzed on oath. Thus, the law officers were attempted not for what they had done in the release of their customary capacity ,however to something outside thereto the court had an undoubted ward over the organization hirelings.

The Supreme Court granted harms of Rupees 3 Lakhs to the dowager which was very in proportionate.

Analysis of The Case:
An impartial examination of the case demonstrates that gross anomalies were conferred by the commonplace committee in giving this case.the law officer were just to elucidate the law and choose question of certainty yet the court found that they were endowed with the whole work of examination. They ought not have analyzed the witnesses themselves as this was crafted by the judge of the common gathering.

The Patna case additionally uncovered the shortcomings of the organization legal organization ,especially that of the sadar diwani adalat at calcutta in light of the fact that the senator general and the individual from the gathering, who constituted the court barely had whenever to take care of the legal work of choosing claims as they were for the most part possessed with different works and avenging their shared competitions.
As respects the ward of the preeminent court over the Mohammedan local law officers, it was held that these officers being in the administration of the organization , the court had purview over them. this view has all the earmarks of being right. be that as it may, the preeminent courts dispute that it additionally had ward over Bahadur ask who was an agriculturist of land income of the organization and henceforth a worker of the organization , does not have all the earmarks of being right. the supreme courts choice in Patna case holding that an agriculturist of land income was to be dealt with in the administration of the organization and consequently fell inside the ward of the court, made dread and frenzy among the local ranchers of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. along these lines this case had an adverse affected the income winning of the organization in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. the weaknesses of the organization of the incomparable court and the preeminent committee which became known through the Patna Case were, anyway , evacuated by the death of the Act of Settlement in 1781.

Act of Settlement In 1781
The demonstration was passed to cure the deformities of Regulating Act of 1773 as the Government was confronting difficulties in the assignment of gathering income . The preface of the Act Stated: 'though it is practical the legal Government of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa ought to be bolstered,' Therefore the Act made arrangements which were more positive to the Governor general and the Council will not together and severally be Subject to the ward of the Supreme Court for any demonstration done by them in their official limit. The most essential arrangement from the perspective of Hindus and Mohammedans was Section 17,which expressed that 'all issue emerging out of legacy and progression to land and products and matters of agreements be resolved by individual laws of the separate gatherings'. assist limitation were put by the Act on the ward of the Supreme Court to engage any issue concerning income or concerning any demonstrations done in the accumulation of income there by giving full insurance to the Government in income matters. All zamindars , arrive holders and agriculturists who paid land in come to the Government were put out ward .But the incomparable Court was enabled to have purview in activities for wrong or trespass and in common situations when parties had concurred in writing to submit for their situation to the Supreme Court willfully . The demonstration offered acknowledgment to the Company's court to be specific, Sadar Diwani and Fauzdari Adalat and gave the sadar Diwani Adalat (Governor and Council) will be a re-appraising Court to Hear claims from the choice of the Mofussil Courts in common cases. Its judgment were to be last upto Rs.5000/ - yet in the event that the topic was, of Rs.5000/ - or increasingly a further interest was given to the committee. In this manner the organization's courts were expedited an indistinguishable balance from that of Supreme Court. The critical of this arrangement can be judged in the light of the choice given by the Supreme Court in the Patna Case. It was nullification of the approach received by the Court all things considered which influenced unfavorably the lesson of the legal officers of the Company's court.

ultimately, before the Act of 1781 the Supreme Court was meddling in the working of the Mofussil Court set up by the Company to direct equity among the people dwelling in the Mofussil territories situated outside the city of Calcutta.

Conclusion
Patna Case is one of the eminent cases in the subject of legal history of India. It has provided us with the knowledge that during the performance of any duty or authority given to any legal official should be exercised or conducted within the ambit of their specified field. This case has also dealt with such situation in which the officials were authorized by the court of law to investigate into the matter of Nadirah Begum and Bahadur Beg to find out the documents and other related information to the case, but during this procedure the officials i.e Kazi and Mufti conducted bad behavior towards Nadirah Begum while entering her house and performance of assault, battery and false imprisonment. Accordingly by seeing all this Supreme Court gave the judgement in favor of Nadirah Begum and these officials were charged with the Punishment of imprisonment along with the fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs to Nadirah Begum. Over all this mishaps, Supreme Court gave the right decision/ verdict that had maintained the trust of citizens in judiciary.

End-Notes
[1] (1777-79)