minal Appeal No 185 of 1971
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 19 1971 of the Madras High Court in Application Nos 1171 and 1172 of 1971
section N Prasad for the appellant
A V Rangam for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Madras directing a sum of Rs 500 deposited in the High Court as security for the appellant s appearance before it in certain contempt of court proceedings to be adjusted against the fine imposed upon him in those proceedings
It appears that the contempt of court proceedings being No 3 of 1962 were taken against the appellant in the High Court in respect of a letter written and addressed by the appellant to the then Chief Justice of the High Court and which contained certain remarks in regard to the dismissal of the appellant s revision application by a single Judge of the High Court
Thus the contempt with which the plaintiff was charged in those proceedings was contempt of the High Court and not the City Civil Court Madras in which the appellant had filed the suit from out of which the said revision application arose
In those proceedings the High Court by its judgment and order dated February 25 1964 held the appellant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months  single imprisonment and fine
The appellant served out the sentence of imprisonment but failed to pay the fine
419 It appears that the said amount of Rs 500 deposited as aforesaid in the said contempt proceedings remained unattached till 1971
In 1971 two applications were filed in the High Court one by the appellant for refund of the said amount and the other on behalf of the State for adjustment of the said amount towards the fine remaining unpaid
By an order dated June 29 1971 the High Court dismissed the appellant s application for refund and allowed the State s application for payment of the said sum towards satisfaction of the said unpaid fine
As against the said order counsel for the appellant relied on sec
70 of the Penal Code and urged that six years having elapsed since the passing of the order imposing fine upon the appellant the State s application was time barred and the High Court could not pass the impugned order the effect of which was to collect the said fine from out of the said deposit
If sec
70 were to apply to the said contempt of court proceedings there is no doubt that the State s application would be time barred as that section in terms provides that such fine can be levied within six years after the passing of the order of conviction and sentence
But sec
5 of the Penal Code provides inter alia that its provisions are not to affect the provisions of any special or local law
Under sec
41 of the Penal Code a special law is one applicable to a particular subject
Therefore if the law as to contempt of court as administered by the High Court of Madras a chartered High Court were to be regarded as special law sec
70 of the Penal Code obviously cannot apply and since such a special law does not prescribe any period of limitation for collecting and satisfying a fine imposed thereunder no question of limitation would arise
Counsel however relied on sec
25 of the which provides that secs
63 to 70 of the Penal Code and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the issue and execution of warrants for the levy of fines shall apply to all fines imposed under any Act Regulation rule or bye law unless such Act Regulation rule or bye law contains an express provision to the contrary
The argument was that the order of sentence which imposed upon the appellant the fine was and must be regarded as an order passed under the Contempt of Courts Act XXXII of 1952 and consequently sec
70 of the Penal Code was applicable
The question is does the power of the High Court of Madras to punish contempt of itself arise under the  so that under see
25 of the  secs
63 to 70 of the Penal Code and the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply The answer to such a question is furnished by article 215 of the Constitution and the provisions of the 420 themselves
article 215 declares that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself
Whether article 215 declares the power of the High Court already existing in it by reason of its being a court of record or whether the Article confers the power as inherent in a court of record the jurisdiction is a special one not arising or derived from the  and therefore not within the purview of either the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure
Such a position is also clear from the provisions of the 
3 of that Act provides that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself
The only limitation to the power is as provided by sub sec
2 that it shall not take cognizance of a contempt committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Penal Code
As explained in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court1 sec
3 of the Act is similar to sec
2 of the 1926 Act and far from conferring a new jurisdiction assumes as did the Old Act the existence of a right to punish for contempt in every High Court and further assumes the existence of a special practice and procedure for it says that every High Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice
 In any case so far as contempt of the High Court itself is concerned as distinguished from that of a court subordinate to it the Constitution vests these rights in every High Court and so no Act of a legislature could take away that jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority
No doubt sec
5 of the Act states that a High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into and try a contempt of itself or of a court subordinate to it whether the alleged contempt is committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction and whether the contemnor is within or outside such limits
The effect of sec
5 is only to widen the scope of the existing jurisdiction of a special kind and not conferring a new jurisdiction
It is true that under sec
4 of the Act the maximum sentence and fine which can be imposed is respectively simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 2000 or both
But that again is a restriction on an existing jurisdiction and not conferment of a new jurisdiction
That being the position sec
25 in the cannot apply
The result is that sec
70 of the Penal Code is no impediment by way of limitation in the way of the recovery of the fine
1   at 463
421 It is true that the deposit was made for a particular purpose that is to secure the presence of the appellant at the time of the hearing of the said contempt proceedings
But the High Court as a court of record being clothed with a special jurisdiction has also all incidental and necessary powers to effectuate that jurisdiction
Consequently it had the power to order satisfaction of fine imposed by it from out of an available fund deposited by or on behalf of or for the benefit of the appellant
In our view the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant cannot for the reasons aforesaid be sustained
The appeal fails and is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
SC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madras directing a sum of Rs 500 deposited in the High Court as security for the appellants appearance before it in certain contempt of Court proceedings to be adjusted against the fine imposed upon him in those proceedings
The contempt of Court proceedings No 3 of 1962 were taken against the appellant in the High Court in respect of a letter written and addressed by the appellant to the then Chief Justice of the High Court and which contained certain remarks in regard to the dismissal of the appellant s revision application by a single judge of the High Court
The contempt with which the plaintiff was charged in those proceedings was contempt of the High Court and not the City Civil Court in which the appellant had filed the suit from which the said revision application arose
In those proceedings the High Court by its judgment held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine
The appellant served out the sentence of imprisonment but failed to pay the fine
The said amount of Rs 500 deposited in the said contempt proceedings remained unattached till 1971
when two applications were filed in the High Court one by the appellant for refund and the other by the State for adjustment of the said amount towards the fine remaining unpaid and the High Court allowed the State s application for payment of the said sum towards satisfaction of the said unpaid fine
Counsel for the appellant relied on section 70 of the Penal Code and urged that six years having elapsed since the passing of the order imposing fine upon the appellant the State application was time barred and the High Court could not pass the impugned order
Further counsel relied on section 25 of the which provides that Sections 63 to 70 of the Penal Code and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the issue and execution of warrants for the levy of fines shall apply to all fines imposed under any Act Regulation etc and since a fine which was imposed upon the appellant was an order passed under the Contempt of Court Act 1952 Section 70 of the Penal Code was applicable
Dismissing the appeal HELD  i See
5 of the Penal Code provides inter alia that its provisions are not to affect the provisions of any special or local law and under article 215 of the Constitution every High Court being a Court of Record have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish fore contempt of itself
The jurisdiction a special one
not arising or derived from the  and therefore not within the purview of either the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure
The law as to contempt of Court as administered by the 418 Madras High Court in the present case is a special law and therefore section 70 of the Penal Code does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case
Further since such a special law does not prescribe any period of limitation for collecting and satisfying a fine imposed thereunder no question of limitation would arise
420 A ii The power of the High Court to punish for contempt of itself arises not under any Act such as Contempt of Courts Act but the Constitution itself vests these rights on every High Court and no Act of a Legislature could take away that jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority and since the sentence of fine and imprisonment passed against the appellant was not imposed under any act or statuteSection 25 of the has no application in the present case
420 E F Sukhdev SinghSondhi v The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court 1954SCR 454 referred to