[2009] 7 S.C.R. 157

KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANlAM A v

STATE OF A.P.

Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2009

APRIL 29. 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 ...;.

Proceedings uls. 498-A /PC - Accused seeking quashing 6f C the proceedings on the ground that s.49BA was not.applicable as he being an already married man, complainantwas not his legally wed wife - Dismissal of petition on the ground that . disputed questions of facts involved- On appeal, held: Petition was rightly dismissed.

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498 and 3048 - Applicability of - D

To the accused not legally wed - Held: Applicable to the person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty - Purposive construction has to come into play in such cases - Interpretation otherwise would defeat E the object of the legislations introducing these provisions - Interpretations of statutes.

Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction - Heydon's Rule - Applicability of

Words and Phrases - 'Husband', 'Marriage' and 'Dowry'

- Meaning of in the context of Penal Code, 1860. ~

Appellant-accused was prosecuted u/s.498A IPC. He filed petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings

on the ground that as he was already married, his marriage G with the complainant was not legal and hence s.498A was not applicable in his case. High Court dismissed the petition holding that the case involved disputed questions of fact. Hence the present appeal.

1~ H

A Dismissing the appeal, the court ·

HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in holding that disputed questions of fact are involved and the application u/s. 482 CrPC has been rightly rejected. There is no scope for interference with the order of the High Court. [Para 25] ,

B [17 4-C-D] :

2.1 The concept of marriage to constitute the relation- ship of 'husband' and 'wife' may require strict interpretation where claims for civil rights, right to property etc. may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different C perception cannot be an anatheme when the question of curbing a social evil is concerned. [Para 10] [166-8-C]

Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 644 - reffered to.

' D 2.2 The evil sought to be curbed u/ss. 494, 498A and 3048 IPC are distinct and separate from the persons committing the offending acts and there could be no impediment in law to liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons committing the E offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority as such husband over another woman. [Para 8] [165-A-C]

F 2.3. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498A and 3048-IPC and Section 1138 of Evidence Act, 1872 were introduced G cannot be lost sight of. Legislations enacted witlT some

policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively reqlltres to be interpreted with certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hyper H technically. The obvious objective was . to prevent

I '

KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V. 159

STATE OF A.P .

harassment to a woman who enters into a marital A relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. [Para 17) [169-B-D]

2.4 A person who enters into a marital arrangement cannot be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage the 8

question of dowry does not arise. Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions. Such

hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage harassment to a woman over demand of money. The legislative intent is clear from the fact that it is not only C the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498A. [Para 17) [169-D-F]

2.5 Section 16 of the Marriage Act deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Can 0 it be said that legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable marriages closed eyes to plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into the marital relationship. If such restricted meaning is given, it would not further the legislative intent. E On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment to a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages. The first exception to Section 494 has also some relevance.

According to it, the offence of bigamy will not apply to F "any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction". [Para 17) [169-G-H; 170-A-B]

2.6 It would be appropriate to construe the G expression 'husband' to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant H

A provisions - Sections 30481498A, whatever be the

legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 3048 IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a s definition of 'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as 'husband' is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 3048 or 498A IPC, viewed in C the context of the very object and aim of the legislations

introducing those provisions. [Para 17] [170-8-E]

Chief Justice of A.P. v. L. VA. Dixitulu 1979 (2) SCC 34; Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 SC 1883; District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. JT 2001 (6) SC 183; D Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd., v. State of Bihar and Ors. Al R 1955

SC 661; Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 1990 SC 781; P.E.K. Kalliani Amma and Ors. v. K. Devi and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1963; Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd., v.

Shapporji Data Processing Ltd. 2003 (8) Supreme 634; E Reserve Bank of India etc. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors. etc. 1987 (1) SCC 424; S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. 1996 (4) SCC 596; Reema Aggarwal v.

Anupam (2004 (3) SCC 199 - relied on.

B.S. Lokhande vs. State of Maharashtra (1965) 2 SCR F 837; Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 135) - Distinguished.

lnderun Valungypoo/yv. Ramaswamy 1869 (13) MIA 141; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. (AIR 1985 SC 628); G State of H.P. v. Nikku Ram AIR 1996 SC 67 - referred to.

Heydon's case 3 Co Rep ?a 76 ER 637; Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155 (CA); Sastry Ve/aider

v. Sembicutty 1881 (6) AC 364; De Thoren v. Attorney General 1876 (1) AC 686; Piers v. Piers L.R. (2) H.L.C. 331 - referred H to.

' .

......,_

KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V. 161

STATE OF A.P.

"Early History of Institution" by Mayne; 'Marriage and A Stridhan' by Banerjee - referred to.

Case Law Reference

1869 (13) MIA 141 relied on Para 8

1881 (6) AC 364 relied on Para 8 B

1876 (1) AC 686 relied on Para 8

L.R.(2) H.L.C. 331 relied on Para 8

1965 (2) SCR 837 distinguished Para 8 c

AIR 1994 SC 135 distinguished Para 8

AIR 1988 SC 644 referred to Para 10

AIR 1985 SC 628 referred to Para 11 D

AIR 1996 SC 67 referred to Para 12

1979 (2) sec 34 relied on Para 18

AIR 1988 SC 1883 relied on Para 19

JT 2001 (6) SC 183 relied on Para 20 E

3 Co Rep 7a 76 ER 637 relied on Para 21

AIR 1955 SC 661 relied on Para 21

AIR 1990 SC 781 relied on Para 21 F

AIR 1996 SC 1963 relied on Para 21

2003 (8) Supreme 634 relied on Para 21

1987 (1) sec 424 relied on Para 22 G 1949 2 All ER 155 (CA) relied on Para 23

1996 (4) sec 596 relied on Para 24

2004 (3) sec 199 relied on Para 24 H

A CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal

No. 867 of 2009

From the Judgement and Order dated 29.03.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1786 of 2003.

Anil Kumar Tandale, for the Appellant.

D. Bharathi Reddy, for the Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court D dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The prayer in the petition was to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 440 of 1999 and CC No.325 of 2001 on the file of 3rc1 Additional Judicial

E First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A case was registered against three accused persons including the present appellant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the F Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Initially, the presence of A-1 could not be secured and therefore court separated the case againstA-1 and proceeded the trial against A-2 and A-3. In the said case A-2 and A-3 were acquitted.

Thereafter, the present application was filed before the High G Court taking the stand that the complainant was not be the legally

wedded wife of the appellant as he was already married and, therefore, Section 498-A has no application to the facts of the case.

The High Court dismissed the application on the ground H that disputed questions of fact are involved.

i (

. ' -

KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V 163

STATE OF AP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] .

4. Learned counsel fodhe appellant submitted that in view A of the acquittal of the co-accused persons the proceedings against the appellant should not proceed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that whether there was alid legal marriage subsisting qua the appellant is a question of fact and, therefore, 8

the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 of Code.

6. Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of c love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife.

According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskara sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one's lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for 0 ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls.

Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual. A question of intricate complexity arises in this appeal where factual scenario has to E be also considered.

7. Stand of the appellant was that it was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since victim claim to have married during the lifetime of the appellant, prosecution has failed to establish that it stood F dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A has no application.

8. The marriages contracted between Hindus are now statutorily made monogamous. A sanctity has been attributed to the first marriage as being that which was contracted from a G sense of duty and not merely for personal gratification. When the fact of celebration of marriage is established it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage ha.ve been , gone through. As was said as long as 1869 "when once you get H '

A to this, namely, that there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law". (See lnderun Valungypoo/y v. Ramaswamy (1869 (13) MIA 141.) So also where a man and woman have been proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, until B contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. (See Sastry Ve/aider v. Sembicutty (1881 (6) AC

364) following De Thoren v. Attorney General (1876 (1) AC

686) and Piers v. Piers (L.R.(2) H.L.C. 331). Where a marriage c is accepted as valid by relations, friends and others for a long time it cannot be declared as invalid. In Lokhande's case (supra), it was observed by this Court "The bare fact that man and woman live as husband and wife it does not at any rate normally give them the status of husband and wife even though

0 they may hold themselves before the society as husband and wife and the society treats them as husband and wife". These observations were cited with approval in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 135). At first blush, it would seem that these observations run counter to the long catena of decisions noted above. But on closer examination of the facts E of those cases it is clear that this Court did not differ from the views expressed in the earlier cases. In Lokhande's case (supra), this Court was dealing with a case of prosecution for bigamy. The prosecution had contended that second marriage was gandharva form of marriage and no ceremonies were F necessary and, therefore, did not allege or prove that any customary ceremonies were performed. In that background, it was held that even in the case of gandharva marriages, ceremonies were required to be performed. To constitute bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the second marriage had to be G a valid marriage duly solemnized and as it was not so solemnized it was not a marriage at all in the eye of law and was therefore invalid. The essential ingredient constituting the offence of Bigamy is the "marrying" again during the lifetime of husband or wife in contrast to the ingredients of Section 498A H which, among other things, envisage subjecting the woman

'-.

KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V 165 STATE OF AP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Jj

concerned to cruelty. The thrust is mainly "marrying" in Section A 494 IPC as against subjecting of the woman to cruelty in Section 498A. Likewise, the thrust of the offence under Section 3048 is also the "Dowry Death". Consequently, the evil sought to be curbed are distinct and separate from the persons committing the offending acts and there could be no impediment in law to B liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons committing the offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority c as such husband over another woman. In Surjit Singh's case

(supra) the stand was that the marriage was in Karewa form.

This Court held that under the custom of Karewa marriage, the widow could marry the brother or a relation of the husband. But in that case the man was a stranger. Further even under that D form of marriage certain ceremonies were required to be performed which were not proved. Dealing with the contention relating to presumption, reference was made to Lokhande's case (supra). As the parties had set up a particular form of marriage which turned out to be invalid due to absence of proof of having undergone the necessary ceremonies related to such E form of marriage, the presumption of long cohabitation could not be invoked.

9. The presumption may not be available in a case, for example, where the man was already married or there was any F insurmountable obstacle to the marriage, but presumption arises if there is strong evidence by documents and conduct. Above position has been highlighted in Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage.

10. The question as to who would be covered by the expression 'husband' for attracting Section 498A does present G problems. Etymologically, in terms of the definition of"husband" and "marriage" as given in the various Law Lexicons and dictionaries - the existence of a valid marriage may appear to be a sine qua non for applying a penal provision. In Smt.

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and H

A Anr. (AIR 1988 SC 644) a woman claimed maintenance under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). This Court applied the provision of the Marriage Act and pointed out that same was a law which held the field after 1955, when it was enacted and Section 5 lays down that B for a lawful marriage the necessary condition that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage is essential and marriage in contravention of this condition therefore is null and void. The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of 'husband' and 'wife' may require strict c interpretation where claims for civil rights, right to property etc. may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different perception cannot be an anatheme when the question of curbing a social evil is concerned.

11. The question of origin of dowry or dos has been the D subject of study by theoreticians. Mayne says that it was a contribution by the wife's family, or by the wife herself, intended to assist the husband in bearing the expenses of the conjugal household (Mayne on "Early History of Institution" page 319).

While dos or dowry previously belonged to husband, his right E over it being unrestricted, all the property of the wife not included in the dowry was called her "paraphra" and was her absolute property over which her husband had no control. (See Banerjee on 'Marriage and Stridhan' 345) In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. (AIR 1985 SC 628) after tracing out the history of F stridhan it was held that wife is the absolute owner of such property under Section 27 of the Marriage Act. Property presented to the husband and wife at or about the time of marriage belongs to them jointly.

12. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'Dowry G Act') was introduced to combat the ever-increasing menace of dowry. The avowed object is prohibition on giving and taking of dowry. Section 2 defines "dowry". Section 4 provides the penalty for demanding "dowry", while Section 5 is a significant provision making agreement for giving or taking dowry to be void. Section H 6 is another provision which reflects statutory concern for

KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V . 167

STATE OF AP [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

• prevention of dowry, be it taking or giving. It is provided therein A that pending transfer of the dowry, the person who received the dowry holds it in trust for benefit of the woman. Amendment to Section 2 by Amendment Act 43 of 1986 has made the provision clear and demand made after the marriage is a part of dowry, in view of addition of words "at or before or after the B marriage". (See State of H.P v. Nikku Ram (AIR 1996 SC 67).

13. The definition of the term 'dowry' under Section 2 of

' the Dowry Act shows that any property or valuable security given

) or "agreed to be given" either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage "at or before c

or after the marriage" as a "consideration for the marriage of • the said parties" would become 'dowry' punishabl~ under the f

Dowry Act. Property or valuable security so as to constitute 'dowry' within the meaning of the Dowry Act must, therefore, be given or demanded "as consideration for the marriage." D

.___,_

14. Section 4 of the Dowry Act aims at discouraging the

~· very "demand" of "dowry" as a 'consideration for the marriage' ""

between the parties thereto and lays down that if any person after the commencement of the Act, "demands", directly or E indirectly, from the parents or guardians of a 'bride' or .; t, 'bridegroom', as the case may be, any 'dowry' he shall be

~ punishable with, imprisonment or with fine or within both. Thus, it .r would be seen that Section 4 makes punishable the very demand ;

' of property or valuable security as a consideration for marriage, which demand, if satisfied, would constitute the graver offence F

under Section 3 of the Act punishable with higher imprisonment and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more.

15. The 'Befinition of the expression 'dowry' contained in G Section 2 of the Dowry Act cannot be confined merely to be 'demand' of money, property or valuable security' made at or after the performance of marriage. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of 'dowry' emphasized that any money, property or valuable security given, as a H

A consideration for marriage, 'before, at or after' the marriage would be covered by the expression 'dowry' and this definition 1as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression 'dowry' occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression 'dowry' as commonly used and understood is different than the B peculiar definition thereof under the Act. Under Section 4, mere demand of 'dowry' is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any 'demand' of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-versa c would fall within the mischief of 'dowry' under the Act where such \ demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the "demand of dowry"

D leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The expression "dowry" under the Dowry Act has to be interpreted in the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it. The definition given in the statute is the determinative factor.

The Dowry Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to

E check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after j,. the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the F bride or the bridegroom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection or regard, would not fall within thischief of the G expression 'dowry' made punishable under the Dowry Act.

16. Aryan Hindus recognised 8 forms of marriage, out of which four were approved, namely, Brahma, Daiva, Arsha and Prajapatya. The dis-approved forms of marriages were

H Gandharva, Asura, Rakshasa and Paisacha. In the Brahma form

KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V 169

STATE OF AP. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

. of marriage, some amounts had to be spent by father/guardian, A >

as the case may be, to go ultimately to the spouses. The origin of dowry may be traced to this amount either in cash or kind.

17. The concept of "dowry" is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Act apply in relation 8 to marriages. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue further legalistic problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of ; 'an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then

the purpose for which Sections 498A and 3048-1 PC and Section

1138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the 'Evidence c -· Act') were introduced cannot be lost sight of. Legislations enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively requires to be interpreted with certain element

-; of realism too and not merely pedantically or hyper technically.

D The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. Can aperson

'. who enters into a marital arrangement be allowed to take a shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was E no valid marriage the question of dowry does not arise? Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions.

Such hairsplitting legalistic approach would encourage

~ harassment to a woman over demand of money. The nomenclature 'dowry' does not have any magic charm written

F ' over it. It is just a label given to demand of money in relation to marital relationship. The.legislative intent is clear from the fact

;, that it is not only the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498A. Legislature has taken care of children born from invalid marriages. Section 16 of the Marriage Act G deals with legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.

Can it be said that legislature which was conscious of the social stigma attached to children of void and voidable marriages

/ closed eyes \to plight of a woman who unknowingly or unconscious of the legal consequences entered into the marital H ·._

A relationship. If such restricted meaning is given, it would not further the legislative intent. On the contrary, it would be against the concern shown by the legislature for avoiding harassment to a woman over demand of money in relation to marriages.

The first exception to Section 494 has also some relevance. 8 . According to it, the offence of bigamy will not apply to "any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction". It would be appropriate to construe the expression 'husband' to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such c proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions - Sections 3048/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 3048 IPC. Such

0 an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of 'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as 'husband' is no ground to exclude them from the purview of E Section 3048 or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.

18. In Chief Justice of A.P v. L. \I.A. Dixitulu (1979 (2) SCC 34), this Court observed:

"The primary principle of interpretation is that a constitutional or statutory provision should be construed "according to the intent of they that made it" (Coke).

Normally, such intent is gathered from the language of the provision. If the language or the phraseology employed by the legislation is precise and plain and thus by itself proclaims the legislative intent in unequivocal terms, the same must be given effect to, regardless of the consequences that may follow. But if the words used in the provision are imprecise, protean or evocative or can reasonably bear meanings more than one, the rule of strict

. KOPPISETII SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V 171

STATE OF A.P. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

grammatical construction ceases to be a sure guide to A reach at the real legislative intent. In such a case, in order to ascertain the true meaning of the terms and phrases employed, it is legitimate for.the Court to go beyond the arid literal confines of the provision and to call in aid other well-recognised rules of construction, such as its legislative 8 history, the basic scheme and framework of the statute as a whole, each portion throwing light, on the rest, the purpose of the legislation, the object s9ught to be achieved, and the consequences that may flow from the adoption of one in preference to the other possible interpretation. c

19. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1988 SC 1883), this Court held:

" .... But, if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we deem it as out 0 paramount duty to put upon the language of the legislature rational meaning. We then examine every word, every section and every provision. We examine the Act as a whole. We examine the necessity which gave rise to the Act. We look at the mischiefs which the legislature intended to redress. We look at the whole situation and not just E one-to-one relation. We will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. We will not view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force behind. We will consider the provisions in the circumstances to which they owe their origin. We will F consider the provisions to ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid _ undesirable consequences.

20. In District Mining Officer v. Tata Iron & tee/ Co. (JT .. G 2001 (6) SC 183), this Court stated:

'The legislation is primarily directed to the proelems before the legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future: H

A But, from the very nature of thing, it is impossible to anticipate fully in the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in hand may be called for th1~ words chosen to communicate such indefinite referents are bound to be in many cases, lacking in charity

B and precision and thus giving rise to controversial questions of construction. The process of construction combines both literal and purposive approaches. In other words, the legislative intention i.e. the true or legal meaning • of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any - discernible purpose or object which comprehends the --.

mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed".

21. The suppression. of mischief rule made immortal in D Heydon's case (3 Co Rep 7a 76 ER 637) can be pressed into service. With a view to suppress the mischief which would have surfaced had ~)Jjteral rule been allowed to cover the field, the Heydon's Rule has t:Je.en applied by this Court in a number of cases, e.g. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd., v. State of Bihar and E Ors. (AIR 1955SG661), GoodyearlndiaLtd. v. StateofHaryana

andiAnr. (AIR 1900 SC 781), PE.K. Kalliani Amma and Ors. v.

K. Qevi and Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 1963) and Ameer Trading r

Corporation Lt</., v. Shapporji Data Processing Ltd. (2003 (8) Supreme 634),

22. In Reserve Bank of India etc. etc. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others etc. etc. (1987

(1) sec 424) while dealing with the question of interpretation of a statute, this Court observed:

G "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour.

Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statue is best interpreted when we t ' H

KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM V 173

STATE OF A.P. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

) know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute A must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may B take colour and appear different than when the statute is

~ looked at without the glasses provided by the context.

With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section,· each clause, each phrase - and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no c

word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place."

23. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER D 155 (CA), Lord Denning, advised a purposive approach to the interpretation of a word used in a statute and observed:

"The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it E were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticised. A Judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save F the-Judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect appears, a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, G and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it cmd of the mischief which it was P?Ssed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention H

i.l

A of the legislature ...... A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in this texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do so as they would have doe. A Judge must not alter the material of which B the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases."

(underlined for emphasis)

24. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in S. c Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996 (4) SCC 596) and Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004 (3) SCC 199.

25. The High Court was justified in holding that disputed questions of fact are involved and the application under Section 482 of Code has been rightly rejected. We do not find any scope D for interference with the order of the High Court. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

26. The appeal is dismissed.

K.K.T.

Appeal dismissed.