Summarize the following court judgment. 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 Court	(1) 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. 2	000	 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. S.C. Appeal dismissed.

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 statute	Section 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 [1954]S.C.R. 454 referred to.