| a Purvoe (i.e. Prabhu clerk) | on | Rs. | 50 | per | month | |
| a Cauzee (Kazi) | ” | ” | 8 | ” | ” | |
| a Bhut (Bhat, Brahman) | ” | ” | 8 | ” | ” | |
| a Jew Cauzee (Rabbi) | ” | ” | 12 | ” | ” | |
| an Andaroo (Parsi Mobed) | ” | ” | 6 | ” | ” | |
| Two Constables | each | ” | ” | 9 | ” | ” |
| One Havildar | ” | ” | 8 | ” | ” | |
| Four Peons | each | ” | ” | 6 | ” | ” |
The executive head of the Police force was a Deputy of Police and High Constable on a salary of Rs. 500 a month, while the general control and deliberative powers were vested in a Superintendent-General of Police. All appointments of individuals to the subordinate ranks of the force were made by the Magistrates of Police, who with the Superintendent-General met regularly as a Bench to consider all matters appertaining to the police administration of Bombay. European constables were appointed by the Justices at Quarter Sessions, and the Mukadams or headmen of each caste formed an integral feature of the police establishment.
The strength and cost of the force in 1812 were as follows:—
| 1 | Deputy of Police and Head Constable | Rs. | 500 | per | month |
| 2 | European Assistants (at Rs.100 each) | Rs. | 200 | ” | ” |
| 3 | Purvoes (Prabhus, clerks) | Rs. | 110 | ” | ” |
| 1 | Inspector of Markets | Rs. | 80 | ” | ” |
| 2 | Overseers of Roads (respectable natives at 50 each) | Rs. | 100 | ” | ” |
| 12 | Havaldars (at Rs. 8 each) | Rs. | 96 | ” | ” |
| 8 | Naiks (at Rs. 7 each) | Rs. | 56 | ” | ” |
| 6 | European Constables | Rs. | 365 | ” | ” |
| 50 | Peons (at Rs. 6 each) | Rs. | 300 | ” | ” |
| 1 | Battaki man | Rs. | 6 | ” | ” |
| 1 | Havaldar and 12 Peons for the Mahim patrol | Rs. | 80 | ” | ” |
| Harbour Police. | |||||
| 7 | Boats i.e. 49 men | Rs. | 300 | ” | ” |
| 1 | Purvoe | Rs. | 50 | ” | ” |
| 4 | Peons (at Rs. 6 each) | Rs. | 24 | ” | ” |
| Contingencies | Rs. | 74 | ” | ” | |
Thus, including the Deputy of Police, the land force comprised 10 Europeans, one of whom was in charge of the markets, and 86 Indians, of whom two were inspectors of roads. The clerical staff consisted of three Prabhus. The water-police consisted of 53 Indians and one clerk. The cost of the force, including the water-police, amounted to Rs. 27,204 a year, to which had to be added Rs. 888 for contingencies, Rs. 1425 for the clothing of havaldars and peons, and Rs. 2000 for stationery.[36]
The inclusion in the magisterial establishment of “a Cauzee” etc. requires brief comment. Down to 1790 the administration of criminal justice in India was largely in the hands of Indian judges and officials of various denominations, though under European supervision in various forms; and even after that date, when the native judiciary had ceased to exist except in quite subordinate positions, the law that was administered in criminal cases was in substance Muhammadan law, and a Kazi and a Mufti were retained in the provincial courts of appeal and circuit as the exponents of Muhammadan law and the deliverers of a formal fatwa. The term Kazi on this account remained in formal existence till the abolition of the Sadr Courts in 1862.[37] The object of associating Kazis with the Bombay magistrates of police at the opening of the nineteenth century was doubtless to ensure that in all cases brought before them, involving questions of the law, customs and traditions of the chief communities and sects inhabiting the Island, the magistrates should have the advantage of consulting those who were able to interpret and give a ruling on such matters. The Kazi proper was the authority on all matters relating to the Muhammadan community; the “Jew Cauzee” on matters relating to the Bene-Israel, who from 1760 to the middle of the nineteenth century contributed an important element to the Company’s military forces;[38] the Bhat presumably gave advice on subjects affecting Hindus of the lower classes; while the “Andaroo” (i.e. Andhiyaru, a Parsi priest) was required in disputes and cases involving Parsis, whose customs in respect of marriage, divorce and inheritance had not at this date been codified and given the force of law.
The Regulation of 1812 effected little or no improvement in the state of the public security. Gangs of criminals burned ships in Bombay waters to defraud the insurance-companies; robberies by armed gangs occurred frequently in all parts of the Island;[39] and every householder of consequence was compelled to employ private watchmen, the fore-runners of the modern Ramosi and Bhaya, who were often in collusion with the bad characters of the more disreputable quarters of the Town.[40] Even Colaba, which contained few dwellings, was described in 1827 as the resort of thieves.[41] The executive head of the force at this date was Mr. Richard Goodwin, who succeeded the unfortunate Briscoe in 1811 and served until 1816, when apparently he was appointed Senior Magistrate of Police, with Mr. W. Erskine as his Junior.
The proceedings of both the magistrates and the police were regarded with a jaundiced eye by the Recorder’s Court, and Sir Edward West, who filled the appointment, first of Recorder and then of Chief Justice, from 1822 to 1828, animadverted severely in 1825 upon the illegalities perpetrated by the magisterial courts, presided over at that date by Messrs. J. Snow and W. Erskine[42]. His successor in the Supreme Court,[43] Sir J. P. Grant, passed equally severe strictures upon the police administration at the opening of the Quarter Sessions in 1828.
“The calendar is a heavy one. Several of the crimes betoken a contempt of public justice almost incredible and a state of morals inconsistent with any degree of public prosperity. Criminals have not only escaped, but seem never to have been placed in jeopardy. The result is a general alarm among native inhabitants. We are told that you are living under the laws of England. The only answer is that it is impossible. What has been administered till within a few years back has not been the law of England, nor has it been administered in the spirit of the law of England; else it would have been felt in the ready and active support the people would have given to the law and its officers, and in the confidence people would have reposed in its efficacy for their protection.”[44]