The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of S. 226, Government of India Act, 1935, which barred the High Court's original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue or acts ordered or done in the collection thereof.

CHAINANI, J. :- This is an application under S. 491, Criminal P.C., for directions of the nature of habeas corpus. The applicant was carrying on business in Bombay in the name of Interseas Corporation as the sole proprietor thereof. In 1946 he also promoted a private limited company under the name of Allied Agencies Ltd., and became a director thereof. He was assessed to income-tax, super-tax and surcharge, including penalties, at Rs. 10,17,259-3-0 for the year 1943-44. A notice calling upon him to pay this amount was issued by the Income-tax authorities. He, however, did not pay it. The Income-tax authorities, therefore, wrote to the Collector of Bombay and asked him to recover the amount in the manner provided in s. 46, Income-tax Act. Sub-section (2) of this section empowers the Collector to recover the amount as if it was an arrear of land revenue, or as if a decree for that amount had been passed by a civil Court. On nth May 1948, the Collector attached two bank accounts of the applicant, in which the balance was about Rs. 600, under O. 21, R. 46, Civil P.C. On 3rd August 1948, the applicant was arrested and detained in a civil jail under O. 21, R. 40. On 25th August 1948, a creditor, to whom the applicant owed about Rs. 24,000, presented a petition to the High Court for adjudicating the applicant an insolvent. On that application an order adjudicating the applicant as an insolvent was passed by the High Court on 30th August 1948. The applicant then applied under S. 26, Presidency-towns Insolvency Act for protection from arrest and detention, but this application was rejected. An appeal was filed against that decision; and we have been informed at the bar that that appeal has been dismissed. On 10th November 1948, the applicants nephew made an application to this Court under S. 491, Criminal P.C., and prayed for the release of the applicant on the ground that his detention was illegal. That application was withdrawn on 6th December 1948. On 1st December 1948, the Collector of Bombay issued a notice to the applicant under s. 13, Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876, calling upon him to pay the-amount of income-tax, and informed him that if this amount was not paid within 20 days from the date of the service of the notice, the Collector would proceed to obtain payment of the same by attachment and sale of the applicants properties or by the other remedies mentioned in s. 13 of the Act. Thereafter certain representations were made on behalf of the applicant to the Income-tax authorities. On 8th January 1949, the Income-tax Officer, Section I (Central), Bombay, wrote a letter to the Collector and suggested that the applicant might be released of certain conditions. On 11th January 1949, the applicant also submitted a petition to the Collector and requested for his release on certain conditions. The Collector also heard the applicants counsel in the matter. As the Collector was of the opinion that it was necessary to continue the applicants detention in the interest of public revenues, he replied to the Income-tax Officer on 14th January 1949, and enquired how it was in the interest of public revenues that a defaulter who, there was reason to believe, had made away with his assets and had not paid assessment of over ten lacs, should be released. The Income-tax Officer then referred the matter to the Central Board of Revenue. On 29th January 1949, the Collector informed the applicant that his request for release could not be granted. Under s. 58, Civil P.C., a person cannot be detained in a civil prison in execution of a decree for more than six months. The period of detention of the applicant ordered by the Collector under the provisions of the Civil P.C., read with s. 46(2), Income-tax Act was due to expire on 2nd February 1949. As the Collector was of opinion that the income-tax dues would not be realized if the applicant was released, he passed another order under S. 13, Bombay City Land Revenue Act on 28th January 1