LexR. L. KAPUR versus STATE OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
R.L.KAPUR
v.
STATE OF MADRAS
February 8, 1972
(J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
~17
Penal Code-S. 70 read with S. 25 of the General Clauses Act 189i-
Whether security deposited in Court in certain contenipt matters can be
adjusted against a fine ilnposed upon him in those proceeding$ after the
lapse of 6 years.
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 appellant's appearance before ii 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 Cl!!ef .Justice of the
High Court and which contained certain remarks in-: resard to the di•·
missal of the appellant'• 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 tile 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 proceed·
ings remained unattached till 1971. when two applications were filed
in the High Court-one bl the appellant for refund and the other by
the State for adjustment o the said amount towards the fine remaining
unpaid and tho 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 S. 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 pus the impugned order. Further, counsel relied on S. 2S
ot the General Cla111es Act 1897 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 ot 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) Sec. 5 of the Penal Code provides, inttr alia, that its
provisions are not to affect the provisions of any special or local law and
under Art. 215 of the Constitution, every High Court being a Court of
H
Record, have all the powers of such a Court including the power to
t punish for contempt of itself. The jurisdiction is a special one. not
arising or derived from the Contempt of Courts' Act 1951, and therefore,
not within the purview of either the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Jaw as to contempt of Court, as administered by the
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
~f~id: .is High Court.. in the present case, is a special la\v and therefore,
S. 70 of the Penal CoJe 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 there·
undc.:· no question of limitation \vould arise. [420 Al
(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
0'1i'n
authority
and since the
sentence
of fine
~1nd imprisonment passed against the appellant \Vas not imposed under
:tny act or statute, Section 25 of the General Clauses Act has no applica-
ti0:1 :o the present case. [420 E·F]
Sukhdev Singh Sondhi v The Chief Justice and Judges of tlte Pepsu
lli~h Court [1954] S.C.R. 454 referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIOl'i : Criminal 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.
S. l'{. PrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.