व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S. II. 3. 9-10
M. p. 25 l. 28-p. 26 l. 13 ] WITNESSES 35
In this passage the word vādī ( litigant ) means ' the defendant '; tatsamam
means 'equal to the amount which is the subject of dispute ' Vyāsa says :
The faults of the witnesses should be stated by the defendant before
the court They ( the witnesses ) should be made ( by the judge ) and
the assessors to refute all the faults put down in writing ( against them )
The meaning is that the witnesses should be required by the sabhyas

• ( assessors ) to give their explanation with regard to their faults as witnesses
  written down on paper The same author ( Vyāsa says ) .
  If ( the witnesses )¹ admit ( the faults pointed out in them ), they do
  not at all deserve to be witnesses if it be otherwise ( i e if the faults are
  not admitted), they ( the faults ) should be established by the defendant
  with evidence If the defendant cannot clearly establish ( the faults urged
  by him ) against the witnesses he should be made to pay a fine When
  the witnesses ( cited by the plaintiff ) are proved ( to possess the faults
  pointed out by the defendant ), they are to be rejected, being devoid of
  the characteristics of ( competent ) witnesses ( The plaintiff ) should be
  made to pay a fine in the same way ( as the defendant, when the latter
  fails to prove the faults alleged ) according to the procedure laid down in
  the s'āstra, if the plaintiff, who relies solely on the goodness of his witnes-
  ses ( in whom faults are established), does not care for other means of proof.
  Atonyathā means ' if not admitted, ' bhāvanīyāḥ means ' should be made
  to admit ' ( their faults ), kriyayā means ' by evidence ' The connection
  of the words is ' not establishing ( the faults ) clearly ' ( i. e sphuṭam is to
  be connected with abhāvayan ) As to the text
  Those faults of witnesses that are ( obvious ) to the members of the
  court or that follow from the ordinary experience of the world should be
  considered ( by the members of the court of their own accord ) Such
  faults should not be required to be established, since ( such witnesses )
  should be excluded ( by the court ) on account of their ( patent ) faults²
  1 Mandlik ( p 25 ) translates this as ' in the answer of admission witnesses are never
  fit to be called '. This is wrong It has already been stated that in an answer of admission
  no evidence is necessary. The author is now on the subject of faults of witnesses The
  explanation of ' atonyathā bhāvanīyāḥ ' that follows makes it clear that the translation
  should be as above
  2 This verse is ascribed to Vyāsa by Aparārka, Sm C and Vīr, while Parās'ara-
  Mādhavīya ascribes it to Kātyāyana Vide notes to V. M pp 72--73 for various readings
  and detailed explanation. Even with the reading ' sabhāsadāṁ dūṣaṇam ' it is possible
  to translate as above, the literal meaning being ' what apears to be a patent fault of the
  members &c ' The word doṣavarjanāt may also mean ' in order that the fault called
  anavasthā may be avoided '. If witnesses were called to prove defects in witnesses other
  witnesses might be cited to prove the former set to be false and the process might have
  to be carried on ad infinitum,