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

40 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. II & 19-21
[ M p 22. l. 16-p. 30. l. 2
A person not giving evidence should be made by the king to pay the whole
debt together with a tenth (part) added thereto on the forty-sixth day
(after he is summoned).
Sarvam (the whole) means including the interest. sadaśabandhakam
means 'together with a tenth part' The Mitākṣarā states that the tenth
part is to be taken by the king and the debt together with interest is to be
taken by the creditor The same author (Yāj. II. 82) lays down the
punishment for one who having knowledge (of the matter in dispute) does
not agree to give evidence as a witness
He, who, having been called upon (along with others) to give evidence
as a witness conceals it from others under the influence of folly, should
be made to pay an eight fold fine; if (he be) a brāhmaṇa he should be
expelled ¹
Such a witness is to be fined eight times as much as the fine inflicted in case
of losing the suit But a brāhmaṇa unable to pay the fine is to be expelled
from the country and a kṣatriya and the like are to be made to do acts
proper for them (or to which they are accustomed) So says the Mitākṣ-
arā. Manu (8. 108) says
That witness who after giving evidence is seen to meet with (the mis-
fortunes of) disease fire or a relative's death within seven days (of
his deposition) should be made to pay the debt and a fine
*Yājñavalkya (II. 80) says
If even after some witnesses have deposed (as to a matter in dispute)
other witnesses more meritorious (than those already examined) or
double in number (of those already examined) depose to the contrary
then the witnesses first examined are false ones ²
Nārada (p 21 v 62) says
³After a judicial proceeding has been almost finished proof whether
documents or witnesses, would be useless unless the same had been
announced before ⁴

1. The Mit. on Yāj. shows that this verse rather applies to a person, who, having
   agreed to give evidence and being cited along with others to depose, afterwards at the trial
   denies to other witnesses that he is a witness. It is Yāj. II. 77 that is the proper verse to
   be cited for the purpose of laying down a punishment for him, who, though he knows the
   matter in dispute, does not agree to come forward as a witness.
2. Vide notes to V M. pp. 77-78 for explanation. This can only apply to a case
   where judgment has not already been pronounced, as th next verse of Nārada makes clear
3. Mandlik (p. 32) Dr Jolly (S. B. E. vol. 33 p 21 note) and Gharpure (p. 41)
   translate nirṇīta by the word decided But this is wrong. nirṇīta does not
   mean nirṇīta It literally means cleansed thoroughly i. e heard completely but
   not finally decided Besides that interpretation would be opposed to the rules about
   review of judgment. Vide notes to V M. pp 79-80.
4. Compare C. Pro. Code Order 7 rule 14 (2) and 18
   p 41 text]