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.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.