the Attorney General, and to state insufficiency of
that the in
the
legal evidence-
rendered it impossible to pursue the 2nd.
Shroff further, though every
endeavour was
Page 322
Criminally charged..
Regret
that these
proved unsuccessful,
Measures should
5.
have
but think that every
thing
was done that could have been done?
eral and the Executive
made to hold him responsible.
3.
The Attorney General reports in
his letter of 24
No
Despatch
4 December (Enclosure in
in my
92 of 13th December last) that
the Crown Solicitor did "issue writs
against each Shroff
and his sureties.", and in his letter
it is stated that he "took great pains to
forward
the
4.
The 2nd Shroff
was also placed,
in the dock at the Magistrates' Court and
by the Attorney General
Government.
As regards the formal or legal
6.
liability of the 1st Shroff,
in Eitel's letter of 4th October (enclosure
in
my Despatch
No 92 of 13th December)
it is stated that the Chest
"placed in the immediate
"Custody of the first Shroff"
and Conclusively in the Report of the Committee of Enquiry (25th October, enclosure in
my
EX