# R.L.KAPUR v. STATE OF MADRAS

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 417
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-02-08
- **Case number:** contempt of Court proceedings (No. 3 of 1962
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-l-kapur-v-state-of-madras-5555
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

~17
Penal Code-S. 70 read with S. 25 of the General Clauses Act 189iWhether 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 applicati0:1 :o the present case. [420 E·F]
Sukhdev Singh Sondhi v T

## Text

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 189iWhether 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 applicati0:1 :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'{. Prasad, for the appellant.
A. V. Rangam. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shela!, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against
the order of tl!e 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 proceed·
ings, 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 sait
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
<o pay the fine.
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
R. L. KAPUR v. MADRAS STATE (She/at, J.)
419
A
It ~pp~ars that. the said amount of Rs. 500, deposited, as
a.foresa1d, m 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 beb,alf of the State for adjustment of the said amount towards
the fine remaining unpaid. By an order, dated June 29, 1971,
B the High Court dismissed the appellant's application for refund
and allowed the State's application for payment of the said mm
t'bwards satisfaction of the said unpaid fine.
c
D
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 diect of which was to collect
the said fine from out of the said deposit. If sec. 70 were to
apply to tqe said contempt of court proceedings, there is no doubt
that the State's application would be time barred as that section
in tenns 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
E
Court, were to be regarded as special law, sec. 70 of the Penal
Code, obviously, cannot apply, and since such a sp.o-eial law does
not prescribe any period of !imitation for collecting and satisfying
a fine imposed thereunder, no question of !imitation would arise.
Counsel, however, relied on sec. 25 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 which provides that secs. 63 to 70 of the Penal Code
F
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
G
Courts Act, XXXII of 1952, and consequently, sec. 70 of the
Penal Code was applicable.
H
The question is, does the power of the High Court of Madras
to punish contempt of itself arise under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1952, so that under sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act,
1897. 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 Art. 215 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
themselves.
Art. 215 declares that every High Court shall be
A
a court of record and shall have all powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Whether Art.
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 Contempt
B
of Courts Act, 1952, 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 Contempt of
Courts Act, 1952. Sec. 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 exer-
'C
cises 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 v. The Chief
Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court,(') sec. 3 of the Act D
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
E
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 c<iuld 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 F
subordinate to j.t whether the alleged contempt is committed within
or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction and whether the contenmor is within or outside such limits;
Tli!> 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 G
imposed is respectively simple imprisonment for six months and
a fine of Rs. 2,000, or both. But tha't again is a restriction on an
existing jurisdiction and not conferment of a new jurisdiction.
That being the position, sec. 25 in the General Clauses Act, 1897
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
H
the fine.
(I) [19l4] S.C.R. 454, at 463.
'A
B
R. L •. KAPUR v. MADRAS STATE (Shelat, J.)
4 21
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,
<;:onsequently, 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 C!)ntentions 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.
(