9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Adjustment of deposit against fine in contempt of court proceedings - Applicability of sec. 70 of the Penal Code for time limitation - Interpretation of sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Jurisdiction of High Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 Adjustment of Deposit Against Fine: The appellant appealed against the High Court of Madras' order directing the adjustment of a deposit of &8377; 500, made as security for the appellant's appearance in contempt of court proceedings, against the fine imposed on him. The appellant was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine, which he served but failed to pay. The High Court allowed the State's application to adjust the deposit towards the unpaid fine, leading to the appellant's appeal. Applicability of sec. 70 of the Penal Code: The appellant argued that the State's application to collect the unpaid fine was time-barred under sec. 70 of the Penal Code, which allows the levy of fines within six years after the order of conviction. However, the court examined the interplay between sec. 70, sec. 5 of the Penal Code, and sec. 41 of the Penal Code, concluding that since the law on contempt of court administered by the High Court of Madras is a special law without a prescribed limitation period, sec. 70 does not apply. Interpretation of sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: The appellant relied on sec. 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, arguing that the order imposing the fine should be considered under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, making sec. 70 of the Penal Code applicable. However, the court analyzed the jurisdiction of the High Court to punish contempt of itself, as provided in the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, determining that the High Court's power to punish contempt is special and inherent, not derived from the Act, thus sec. 25 does not apply. Jurisdiction of High Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1952: The court clarified that the power of the High Court to punish contempt of itself is inherent and not conferred by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act merely widens the existing jurisdiction of the High Court, assuming the court's right to punish contempt. The court emphasized that the Act does not confer new jurisdiction but regulates the existing special jurisdiction vested in every High Court by the Constitution. In conclusion, the court held that the High Court had the authority to order the satisfaction of the fine from the deposit made for the appellant's appearance in the contempt proceedings. The contentions raised by the appellant regarding time limitation and applicability of penal provisions were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no order as to costs.
|
