Judgment

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 simple imprisonment and fine. The appellant served out the sentence of imprisonment, but failed to pay the fine.

2. 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.

3. As against the said order, 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 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.

4. 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 or byelaw" unless such Act. Regulation, rule or byelaw 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, section 70 of the Penal Code was applicable.

5. 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