Contempt power and limitation: High Court fine recovery was not subject to Section 70 and deposit adjustment was upheld.

Article 215 of the Constitution vests High Courts with an inherent power as courts of record to punish for contempt, and that jurisdiction is preserved, not created, by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. On that basis, the six-year limitation in Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code did not govern recovery of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings, because the contempt power does not derive from the Penal Code or the General Clauses Act. The High Court could also apply the available security deposit toward satisfaction of the unpaid fine as an incidental power necessary to effectuate its contempt jurisdiction. The limitation objection therefore failed, and the adjustment of the deposit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the six-year limitation under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 applied to recovery of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings, and whether the High Court could appropriate the security deposit towards satisfaction of that fine.

Analysis: Article 215 of the Constitution of India vests every High Court with the power as a court of record to punish for contempt of itself. That jurisdiction is special and inherent, and does not arise from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 preserves the existing jurisdiction and practice of High Courts and does not confer a new jurisdiction; Section 4 only regulates the maximum punishment and fine. Since the contempt power is not derived from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 25 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not attract Sections 63 to 70 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The fine imposed in contempt proceedings was therefore not subject to the limitation in Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court, as a court of record with incidental and necessary powers to effectuate its jurisdiction, could also direct that the available deposit be applied towards the unpaid fine.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed, and the High Court's direction adjusting the deposit towards the fine was upheld.

---