Interpretation of Statute

Interpretation of Statute
The language of clause (i)(c) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admits of two interpretations—Legislative intent in making the prohibition against a private complaint is to save a party from vexatious prosecution by their opponents and to avoid a conflicting decision between two Courts. Purpose of prohibition in section 195 (1) (c) CrPC will be defeated if the cases of forgery committed before the institution of the proceeding in which the document was used in Court do not apply.
Abdul Hai Khan Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 226.—Procedures though appear to be merely procedural, are in fact substantive in nature concerning substantive right of an accused to be heard before he is condemned. These are mandatory provisions of law and not merely procedural and if not followed in full it will render all subsequent proceedings, finally ending up in trial in absentia, coram non judice and thus, a nullity. 30 days’ time for appeal to be counted from the date of knowledge of Conviction when relevant statutes do not prescribe any date from which limitation is to run.
Lal Mia Vs. State 42 DLR 15.

—Rule of literal construction to be adopted if the language of a statute is plain and clear—Rule of literal construction to be departed from and the language of the statute may be modified if the language Of the statute is capable of two or more constructions.
Abdul Hai Khan Vs. State 40 DLR (AD) 226

—Plain meaning—Provisions of an enactment are to be interpreted by its plain meaning. The rule of interpretation is that we cannot import words into an enactment which are not there in it.
AHM Kamaluddin Vs. State 43 DLR 294.