71
sideration of the deceased's services, that each of the sons should be given a munsab of Rs. 50 until he is 21 years old—for purposes of education. The eldest of these three brothers having since entitled himself by competitive examination to a Government scholarship, the favourite above referred to thought he could of his own accord transfer one of the munsabs to one of the daughters—and accordingly issued the cheque of Rs. 50. Somehow or other the Political and Financial Secretary's Office came to know of this and immediately apprised the man of his mistake and thus prevented the cheque being cashed. Why was not the man brought to book for illegally issuing the cheque ?
They—I mean the rulers de facto—refused to furnish the Nawab Imad Nawaz Jung with copies of papers relating to the two inquiries held in connection with the so-called second Treasury Frauds Case—one by the Revenue Secretary, and the other by the Accountant-General's Office. The Nawab insisted on copies being supplied to him, and a lengthy correspondence passed between him and his 'inquirers' with the result that the Minister ruled that as both these inquiries were of a confidential nature copies of papers relating to them could not be given. What do you think of this ruling, Mr. Editor? Have you ever heard of anything so extraordinary as this ? A highly-placed individual finds himself all of a sudden charged with having committed "frauds." Two inquiries are held in connection with this. And when the accused applies for copies of papers concerning them he is told he cannot have them as the inquiries were confidential. Were these inquiries "confidential" in the sense that they but revealed the utter baselessness of the charges brought against the Nawab Imad Nawaz Jung, the Rajah Srinivas Rao and others? Or were they "confidential" because they were meant only to find out how far the position of the accused was tenable?
The commission brought into existence to inquire into the second Treasury Frauds Case, was empowered only to report on
