Tadhkirah — Page 35
E ARLY Y EARS – 1881 35 it but I fried the serpent as one fries a fish and sent it back to him. I realise that this was an indication that the decision in that case might become a ruling helpful to lawyers in such cases. In short, I was summoned to Gurdaspur (the headquarters of the district) to answer this charge. All the lawyers with whom I consulted advised that the only way of deliverance open to me was to plead that I had not put the letter in the packet and that Rallia R a m himself might have put the letter in the packet after having received both of them separately. The lawyers assured me that in such case I would be acquitted as there would be no evidence against me except the statement of Rallia R a m. They also advised that two or three false witnesses might be produced in support of such statement. They felt that without recourse to this device there was no hope of my deliverance and that conviction was certain. I told them categorically that I would not swerve an inch from the truth whatever the consequence might be. I appeared in the court of an English magistrate and a European superintendent of post offices appeared as complainant on behalf of the government. The magistrate proceeded to record my statement and asked me: ‘Did you put this letter in the packet and were the letter and the packet dispatched by you?’ I answered without any hesitation: ‘This is my letter and this is the packet that I dispatched. I myself placed the letter in the packet when I sent it, but I did not put the letter in the packet with any dishonest intention to cause loss of revenue to the government. I did not consider the letter as being distinct and separate from the article enclosed in the packet, nor did the letter contain any personal matter. ’ Allah the Almighty inclined the heart of the magistrate in my favour. The