According to it, the meaning of a word has to be derived from the words mentioned along with it in the statute. This is because words at time have contextual meanings and support complete interpretation only when read read with contiguous words. This rule can be used when the word carries the same meaning everywhere in the statute, but not where alternative meanings are possible. This rule, like other rules of interpretation, is not resorted to when using it would lead to absurdities of interpretation.
The same words bear the same meaning in the same statute. But this rule will not apply :-
- When the context excluded that principle.
- It is not needed if sufficient reason can be assigned.
- Where it would cause injustice or absurdities.
- Where different circumstances are being dealt with.
- Where the words are used in a different context.
In Pradeep Agarbatti v. State of Punjab [AIR 1998 SC 171], the question was whether 'dhoop' or 'dhoopbatti' fell within the description of 'perfume' thereunder. It was held that perfumery means such articles as used in in cosmetics and toilet goods viz, sprays etc. but does not include 'dhoop' and 'agarbatti'.
No comments:
Post a Comment