Conjunctives and disjunctives

• And is conjunctive
• Or is disjunctive.
• Lord Scrutton LJ “ You do sometimes read or as and in
a statute. But you donot do so unless you are obliged
because or does not generally mean and , and does
not generally mean or.
• Standard Chartered Bank vs Direcotrate of
enforcement (2005) 4SCC 533 SC held and as or and
fine or imprisonment can be imposed on companies.
 M.Sathyanarayana vs The state of karnataka
AIR 1986 SC1162
• The expression and can not be read disjunctively. It is not
possible to hold that sub clause (a) of Rule 4 of Karnataka
medical college rules ,1984, which reserved admissions to
freedom fighters’ wards, should be read independently of sub
clause(b).
• A statute can not be construed merely with reference to
grammar. Statute whenever the language permits must be
construed reasonably and rationally to give effect to the
intention and purpose of the Legislature”
• The expression and has generally a cumulative effect, requiring
the fulfillment of the conditions that joins it together and it is
antithesis of or
 Paras Ra vs State of Bihar
AIR 1993 SC1212
• The SC held while interpreting the words arms and
ammunition u/s 5 of TADA,1987 , it was held that
the intention of the legislature was clear to the
effect that the word and should be read in
conjunctive.
• In R vs Newbould (1962) 2 QB 192 The QB held
while interpreting the expression local and public
authorities held that either local or public
authorities of Sec 4 (2) of the prevention of the
corruption Act,1916.
 R vs Oakes (1959) 2QB 350
• The QB while interpreting sec 7 of the official
secrets Act,1920, “ any person who attempts to
commit any offence under the principal Act or this
Act, or solicits or incites or endevours to persuade
another person to commit an offence, or aids or
abets “and” does any act preparotary to the
commission of the offence”. It was held that words
must be interpreted as or because reading it as and
would lead to an absurd conclusion and not in
consonance with the legislative intent.
Haridas Mundhra vs National and Grindlays
Bank Ltd
AIR 1963 CAL132
• The question before the division bench of Calcutta HC
was whether sec 176 of the Indian contracts Act,1872
which gives a pawnee the right to bring a suit on the
pawn and retain lien on the pawned goods, or to sell the
pawned goods and apply the sale proceeds to the
discharge of the loan, provided alternative rights to the
pawnee because of the use of the expression or between
goods and to. It was held that the pawnee had the right
to avail the two courses at the same time because the
word or in the context did no mean a disjunctive sense.
 Ishwar Singh vs State of UP
AIR 1968 SC 1450
• SC interpreting Sec 3(b)(i) of the Drugs Act,1940. the
provision before its amendment in 1962 defined drug as
“all medicine for internal or external use of human beings
or animals and all substances intended to be used for or
in diognosis , treatment, mitgation or preventions of
disease in human beings or animals other than medicines
‘and’ substances exclusively used or prepared for use in
accordance with ayurvedic or Unani systems of medicine
“. It was held that intention of the legislature could be
gathered from the context of the enactment, and thus
interpreted the word and must be read as or
 Federal System and Navigation Company Ltd vs
Department of Trade and Industry(1974) 2All97(HL)

• Interpretation of the words owner or Master

used in Sec 1(2) of the Oil in Navigable Waters
Act,1955 was in question. The House of Lords
held that words should be read as Owner and
Master, so that they could both be punished
for committing the offence under the section.
• The court held that such was the intention of
the legislature, had not been the case the
executive will pick and choose.