THE COLLECTOR OF MALABAR versus FRIMAL EBRAHIM HAJEE

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 11-04-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
1957 
Sanvan Singh 
bring home to Sarwan Singh the charge framed against 
him. If that he the true position, we must hold that 
the learned Judges of the High Court were in error in 
convicting Sarwan Singh of the offence of murder. It 
is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul could-blooded 
and cruel 
murder 
like the 
present 
should 
go 
v. 
The State of 
Pu'lfa:b 
1957 
J. unpunished. It may be as Mr. Gopal Singh strenu-
ous! y urged before us that there is an element of truth 
in the prosecution 
story 
against both the appellants. 
Mr. Gopal Singh contended that, considered as a whole. 
the prosecution story may be true ; hut between 'may 
be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long 
distance to travel and the whole of this distance must 
be covered by 
legal, 
reliable 
and unimpeachable 
evidence. We have carefully considered all the argu-
ments which Mr. Gopal Singh urged before us ; but we 
do not think it 
would be possible to regard the 
approver as a reliable witness or to hold that the 
confession of Sarwan Singh is voluntary or true. 
In 
the result, the appeal preferred by Sarwan Singh must 
be allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed 
against him must be set aside and he must be acquit-
ted and discharged. 
Appeals allowed. 
THE COLLECTOR OF MALABAR 
v. 
FRIMAL EBRAHIM HAJEE 
(S. R. DAS C.J., JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, 
GoVINDA 
MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Income Tax-Arrears 
of-Wilfully 
withholding and evading 
payment-Arrest of asses see to recover arrears-Whether illegal-
/ndian 
Income Tax Act, s. 46 (2)-Madras Revenue Recovery Act 
(Mad. II of 1864), s. 48-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 21 
and 22. 
The Income Tax Officer forwarded a certificate 
under s. 46(2) 
of the Indian Income Tax Act to the Collector for recovering the 
arrears of lncome Tax from the assessee as if they were arrears of 
land revenue. The Collector proceeded under s. 48, Madras Revenue 
---<.· 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
971 
Recovery 
Act, and had the asscssee arrested and confined in jail. 
Upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus the High Court ordered 
the 
release of the 
assessee 
holding that s. 48 
of the 
Madras 
Revenue Recovery Act and s. 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act 
were ultra vires. 
The Collector appealed. 
Held, that s. 48 of the Madras Revenue 
Recovery 
Act, and 
s. 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act were not ultra vires ,and 
neither of them violated Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 
Where the personal liberty of a person is lawfully taken away 
under Art. 21, i.e., in accordance with a procedure established by a 
valid law, no question of the 
exercise 
of fundamental 
rights 
under Art. 19(1) (a) to (e) and (g) tan be raised . 
. A. K. Gopalan v. 
The State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 88, 
followed. 
An arrest for a civil debt in the process of or in the mode 
prescribed by law for recovery of arrears of land revenue docs not 
c0me within the protection of Art. 22. 
State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (1953) S.C.R. 254, followed. 
Section 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act does not offend 
Art. 14 and there is no violation of Act. 21 
where a person is 
arrested under s. 48, Madras Revenue Recovery Act, in pursuance 
·of a warrant of arrest issued 
for 
the recovery 
of the demand 
certified under s. 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. 
Purshottam Govindji Halai v. Shri B. M. Desai, Additional 
Collector of Bombay, ( 1955) 2 S.C.R. 887, followed. 
Section 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act gives authority 
to the Collector to recover arrears of tax if it were an arrear of 
land revenue. Section 48 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act 
read with s. 5 make it clear that the arrest of the defaulter is one 
of the modes by which · the arrears of land revenue can be recovered, 
to be resorted to if the said arrears cannot be liquidated by the sale 
of the defaulter's property. Such an arrest is not for any offence 
committed or a punishment for defau!ting in any payment. 
Section 48 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act does 
not 
require the Collector to give the defaulter an opportunity to be 
heard before arresting him. But the Collector must have reason to 
believe that the defaulter is wilfully withholding payment or 
has 
.been guilty of fraudulent conduct in order to' evade payment. Such 
belief must be based upon some material. which a Court may look 
into in appropriate cases. to find out if the conditions laid down in 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.