 STRICT CONSTRUCTION ON PENAL STATUTE

- Any provision under penal statute if it appears to be reasonable doubt or

ambiguity shall be resolved in favour of the person who would be liable to
the penalty.
- If a penal provision reasonably interprets to avoid punishment it must be so
constituted.
- There are two reasonable constructions of penal provisions; the more lenient
should be give effect to.
- Punishment can be given to that person only if the plain words of provision
are able to bring that person under its preview. No extension of the meaning
of the word is permissible.
- According to Maxwell, the strict construction of penal statute seems to
manifest itself in four ways
a. In the requirement of express language for the creation of an offence
b. In interpreting strictly words setting out the element in requiring the
fulfillment of the letter of statutory conditions precedent to the
infliction of punishment.
c. In insisting on the strict observance of technical provision concerning
criminal procedure and jurisdiction
d. Jurisdiction
- Unless the act is not considered criminal, the person shall not be consider as
criminal.
- In case of ambiguity in order to determine whether the action amount to an
act or omission, then the ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person
charged. In such cases where there is doubt the benefit has to be given to
the accused to such an extend that may even be acquitted
- In penal statute there is presumption that a crime has been constructively
committed. It means that while interpreting a penal statute it must always
be kept in mind that punishment could be imposed only when the conduct of
the accused falls clearly within the letter of the law. But at the same time a
penal statute never construct to the narrow down its words to exclude such
cases as would ordinarily be within its ambit.
- An accused could always argue that even though his conduct falls within the
express language of the statute the same is against its spirit. where both
letter of the law spirit are same , the Court is bound to construe it like any
other statute according to the fair common sense meaning.
- Penal statute are generally prospective in operation
- In such legislation the procedure and jurisdiction is strictly follow.
Case law - In W.H. King v. Republic of India, the appellant assigned his tenancy to another
after receiving money in the form of a pugree. On being prosecuted under the
Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates (Control), Act, 1947, he
contended that he could be liable under the Act only when the prosecution
proved that he had relinquished his tenancy on accepting some consideration.
The prosecution argued that relinquishment and assignment were more or less
same and that the term relinquishment had not been used in the Act in a
technical sense.

Rejecting the prosecution's contention, the Supreme Court held that since the
Act was a penal statute, it had to be strictly construed in favour of the subject
because relinquishment of the tenancy as required under the Act was not the
same as assignment.

Case law - In Inder Sain v. State of Punjab, the question was whether possession of opium
in itself is an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878. The Supreme Court
observed that the word possess in Section 9 does not bear a clear meaning. It
may reasonably mean mere possession or it may mean possession with
knowledge.

The Act being a penal statute should be interpreted in favour of a subject in case
of two reasonable interpretations. So holding, therefore, it is clear that the
prosecution must prove that opium was found in possession of the appellant and
that he knew its existence. Since the prosecution has failed to prove these,
conviction of the appellant is bad in law.

Case law - R. v. Ireland, where the words 'assault' and 'bodily harm' under Sections 20 and
47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 were to be interpreted. The
Court appreciated the link between the body and psychiatric injury and held that
silent telephone calls which caused psychiatric injury would amount to 'assault'
and 'bodily harm' within the meaning of the said provisions.
  Strict construction on taxing statute
- Statutes imposing taxes or monetary burdens are to be strictly construed the
principle is applied here because it is same as penalty statute
- A person cannot be taxed unless the language of the statute unambiguously
imposes the obligation without straining itself .
- Intention of the legislature to tax must be gathered from the natural
meaning of the words by which it has expressed itself. It simply means, the
words should be cleared, because presumption in case of tax statute does
not exist.
- If the person who has to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must
be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be.
- If the subject does not fall within the letter of the law or the ambient od the
legislature he shall not be taxed.
- Statutes imposing pecuniary burdens are should be interpreted strictly.
- Here the language of a taxing legislation can`t be stretched to do favour to
the State or narrowed the meaning to benefit any person who is to be taxed.
- If the words in taxing enactment or statute give two reasonable
interpretations without doing violence to the language used, the
interpretation which favours the person who is to be taxed.
- In tax legislation implication, presumption logical extension to the meaning,
equitable considerations are not taken into account
- A taxing statute generally has no retrospective operation unless it mentioned
in the legislation merely

Case law - In Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. A. Raman and Company, the Supreme
Court observed that payment of tax could be lawfully avoided by properly
arranging and distributing the commercial affairs. The tax-payer has a right to
divert his income without flouting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. But tax
evasion is not permissible.

Case law - In Lakshmi Ammal K.M. Madhav Krishnan the question of interpreting in Court-
fees Act was involved. The Supreme Court applied the strict construction rule
and held that if the court-fees is heavy a serious restriction is placed in the right
of a person seeking justice as he may not like to seek a remedy in view of the
heavy court-fees, and in those ceases where a doubt arises as to whether less
court-fees is required in a case or more the benefit must go to the individual
concerned who seeks the remedy and not to the State.
Case law- In Dunlop India Limited v. Union of India, the question was whether the
commodity known as V.P. Latex comes within the meaning of rubber. The
Supreme Court said that while using a word in a taxing statute the legislature
always keeps in mind the popular meaning of that word as understood in trade
and commerce circles. So interpreted, there is no doubt that V.P. Latex is rubber.
The natural and popular sense of the term has no ambiguity and the legislature
while using the term had this meaning in mind.
  INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE IN PARI-MATERIA
- I where the statutes are in pari-materia that is they are releted to form a
system or a code of legislation.
- Such Acts to be taken together as forming one system and interpreting and
enforcing each other.
- As it is permissible to read two statute / Acts together when the same acts
complementary to each other.
- the change in the meaning of the statute is not attributed unless it is
intended.
- If the acts are in pari materia it assumed that the uniformity of language and
meaning was intended attracting the same consideration as arise from the
construction of the act and it is construe as whole.
- If there is any doubt in the meaning of the statutes then it is understood that
or the best way to harmonies the aim and subject of legislation.
- it is to be inford that all Acts in pari materia are to be taken together as if
they were one law. It is considered this way because the words in the Acts /
legislature are use in identical sense. but this an assumption is rebuttable by
the context of the statute.
- according to this doctrine all the legislation labour law or taxation can be
used to interpret belonging they are belonging to to the Same genre, if in
certain cases the certain words are not define the court may apply this
doctrine for importing meaning in the course from other legislation but while
doing this the meaning of the words should be taken in same Context in
which they appear under that legislation.
- The word pari means equal and not similar.
- While interpreting consolidating statutes this statute that has repealed but
reproduced substantially are treated as pari-materia.

Case law- In State of Madras v A.B. Iyer that the definition of the expression 'shall presume'
in Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be utilised while interpreting
the words 'it shall be presumed' in Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 (Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) according to which
on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification, other than legal
remuneration, it shall be presumed unless contrary is established by the accused
that the gratification was accepted as a bribe, as they are statutes in pari
materia.
Case law- In Employees state insurance corporation madras V/S S. M. Shriramulu Naidu

It was held that this doctrine could not be used to say that the factories Act and
the employees state insurance act both of in pari materia though they were
enacted in same year and both of them were intended to benefit the cause
earners the court said that the factories act was essentially concerned in the
interest and the safety of workers employed in manufacturing or any work
incidental work to. Where as factories acts were essentially concerned with the
regulation of the workers thus both could not be stated be in the same genre.
AMENDING STATUTE

- Amendment is on legislative act design to change some prior and existing law
by adding or taking from it some particular provision. the change in the
original Act is always carried out with the purpose for the better
understanding of legislature and to fulfill the purpose of the act
- Where an expression in the Legislature is doubtful, the meaning has been
interpreted by the court in a particular meaning even in the subsequent
legislation unless a contrary intension appears from the terms of the statute.

Case law - Shamrao v/s District magistrate them

when subsequent act amends an earlier one in such way as to incorporate itself
or a part of itself into the earlier Act, then the earlier act must be read and
constitute except where that would leave repugnancy, inconsistence or
absurdity, As if the altered words has been written into the earlier act that the
old words carry the same meaning and thus it requires no need to refer the
amending Act. In other words an amended Act must be read as if the word of
amendment had been written into the act except that would live to an
inconsistency
CONSOLIDATING STATUTE

- it is one which collects all statutory provision relating to a selected Topics is one
place is one legislative Act, which minor amendments and improvements is one
which collects all statutory provision with minor amendment and imprisonment
is necessary consolidating statute are arbitration act, Indian succession act

- while interpreting consolidating Act a presumption exist a presumption exist that

the legislature does not intend to change the existing law because it has only
connect or relevant enacted on the specified topic at one place and enacted a
new legislation

CL- Galloway v/s Galloway

the question was interpreting the word Children' U. S. 26 (1) of matrimonial causes act,
under in this provision the court dissolve the marriage is empowered to make
Appropriate provision for the custody maintenance and education of the children. The
court overruled the large number of previous judicial pronouncement which had
interpreted word children in limited sense that is board to the parents after this
marriage the court hold that world "children" includes also children born before the
marriage.

Case law- A. C Sharma v/s Delhi administration

It was held by supreme court that the legislature cannot be presume who had intended
to make any substantial alteration in existing law beyond what it expressly declare,
value of statement of object and reasons and that of preamble was at also indicates by
the court in the case
codifying statute

- A codifying statutes is one which purpose is State the whole of the law upon
a particular subject, it includes both preexisting statute and common Law
relating to the matters.
- In codifying statute it is imp to examine the language of the statute to see its
natural meaning is uninfluenced by any consideration derived from the
previous state of law and not to state and to assume that it was presume to
line with alter to see if the words enactment with bear an infirmity of the will

In Rohini Kumari v. Narendra Singh, the Supreme Court said that the preamble of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 describes it as one to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among
Hindus. It is well known that when a particular branch of law is codified it is intended and the
object essentially is that on any matter specifically dealt with by that law it should be sought for
in the codified enactment alone when any question arises relating to that matter. Ordinarily,
when it has been expressly stated that an enactment is meant for codifying the law the Court is
not at liberty to look to any other law. The Act not only amends but also codifies the law of
marriage and it has made fundamental and material changes in the prior law. Section 4 gives
overriding effect to its provisions. Therefore, unless in any other enactment there is al provision
which abrogates any provision of the Act or repeals it expressly or by necessary implication, the
provisions of the Act alone will be applicable to matters dealt with or covered by the same.