1949 (4) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act.
2. Applicability of Section 58 of the Civil Procedure Code to the detention period.
3. Condition precedent for detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act:
The Collector detained the applicant under Section 13, which allows for the detention of a defaulter in a civil jail for non-payment of land revenue. The section specifies that the period of imprisonment shall not exceed one day for each rupee of the amount to be recovered. The applicant contended that his detention was illegal as the maximum detention period under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is six months. However, the court noted that the proviso to Section 13 sets a maximum limit of one day per rupee, which is distinct from the CPC provisions. The court concluded that the maximum limit of detention under Section 13 is not governed by the CPC but by the section itself.

2. Applicability of Section 58 of the Civil Procedure Code to the Detention Period:
The applicant argued that the rules for the confinement of debtors under the CPC should apply, limiting detention to six months. However, the court found that the rules referred to in Section 13 pertain to the mode of confinement, not the period. The court reasoned that the different phraseology in Section 13 and Section 36 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act indicates that the CPC's detention period does not apply. The court also noted that the intention of the Legislature was to give the Collector discretion to determine the actual period of detention within the maximum limit prescribed by Section 13.

3. Condition Precedent for Detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act:
The applicant contended that the Collector must first attempt to satisfy the demand by selling the defaulter's property before detaining him. The court agreed, stating that the scheme of Section 13 requires the Collector to proceed against the defaulter's property first. However, the court noted that if the defaulter has no property, the Collector can proceed directly to detention. In this case, the applicant's property had vested in the Official Assignee due to insolvency, but the court held that the property could still be sold for the realization of government dues. The court concluded that the condition precedent for detention was not impossible to fulfill and that the Collector should have attempted to sell the property first.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The Advocate-General argued that the application was barred by Section 226, which restricts the High Court's original jurisdiction in revenue matters. The court noted that applications under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code are made in the exercise of the High Court's original jurisdiction. The court also noted that the Collector's act of detaining the applicant was done in the collection of revenue. The court referred to several precedents, including decisions of the Privy Council and the Federal Court, which held that if an officer acts bona fide and not absurdly in the collection of revenue, the High Court's jurisdiction is barred. The court concluded that the Collector acted bona fide and that the application was consequently barred by Section 226.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application and discharged the rule, holding that the detention order was within the Collector's powers under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere due to the bar imposed by Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935.