§ MR. CAINEI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India is be aware that a Hindu deputy collector of Malabar, Mr. C. Kunhi Kannan was, on the ex parte Report of the acting District Magistrate, prosecuted by the Madras Government for alleged bribery in October, 1888, without being given any opportunity of explanation; and whether sworn evidence has been forthcoming, since the prosecution was ended, proving that the prosecution was the result of a conspiracy, and that the Madras Government has refused to order an inquiry; and, if so, will the Secretary of State call for copies of Petitions, dated 19th May and 21st December, 1893, with a, view to considering the advisability of directing the Madras Government to hold an inquiry into the case?
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERMr. C. Kunhi Kantian was prosecuted before a Court of Law to which he had the opportunity of submitting such explanation or defence of his conduct as he might have to offer. The result of the trial was, however, that he was convicted of bribery, and sentenced to imprisonment. Since his release he has petitioned the Government of Madras for a further inquiry, alleging that his conviction was the result of a conspiracy; but, as the trial had taken place in the ordinary way before the Sessions Court, the Government of Madras pointed out that his proper course was to apply to the Sessions Court for sanction to prosecute his accuser for perjury, or to move the High Court to take up the matter in exercise of its powers of revision, and that an investigation by a special officer would, by comparison, carry no weight, and would have no legal authority. In this view I am disposed, as at present advised, to concur.