9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings, 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' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 General Clauses Act, 1897 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 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 v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court,( [1954] S.C.R. 454, at 463.) 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 eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
