For example<\/strong> the long title of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as \u201cAn Act to consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\nThe long title of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as \u201cAn Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Criminal Procedure.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
* In olden days the long title was not considered a part of the statute and was therefore, not considered as an aid while interpreting it. But now, in recent times there has been a change in thinking of courts and help has been taken from long title to interpret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
* If the words in a stature are unambigious, no help is derived. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
* Long title is not a conclusive aid (\u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0923\u093e\u092f\u0915) to interpret. Help Can be taken only to the extent of removing confusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ashwin Kumar Ghosh v. Arbinda Bose<\/em>. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n It is now settled law that, the title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the meaning of the enactment. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal<\/em> <\/strong> : Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1949 was involved. Under this section, the State Government was empowered to choose as to which particular case should go for reference to the Special Court to be tried under a special procedure. This was challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme court rejected the contention and held that, the long title<\/strong> of the Act which said, \u201cAn Act to provide for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences\u201d<\/em> was clear enough to give the State Government a discretion as to which offences deserved to be tried by the special courts under a special procedure.
In sum, the long title gives a general description of the object of the Act and is an admissible aid to construction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLong title, alongwith preamble<\/strong> serves as a legitimate aid or good guide regarding object, scope and purpose of the Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>\n 3. Preamble (\u0909\u0926\u094d\u0926\u0947\u0936\u093f\u0915\u093e) :- <\/strong>\n<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n- \n Preamble serves as a preface (introduction) to the Act. \n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Preamble usually mentions the general object and intention of the of the legislature in passing the enactment.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Examples, the preamble of the Constitution. The preamble of the IPC reads as \u201cWhereas (\u091c\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0905\u0930\u094d\u0925\u0940) it is expedient (\u092f\u094b\u0917\u094d\u092f) to provide a general Penal Code for India, it is enacted as follows :-\u201c\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The proper function of preamble is to explain certain facts which are necessary to be explained before the enactments contained in the Act can be understood. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Preamble is said to be necessary but not an essential part because there are Acts which do not have preamble. The normal trend generally is not to have a preamble in Act. As a consequence, the importance of preamble is declining. \n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Preamble contains main object of the Act and is therefore a part of the statute because of which, the courts can consider preamble as an internal aid to interpretation.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n If the language of an enactment is clear and unambigious, the preamble has no right to play in interpretation.\n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala <\/em> <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n If the language in an ordinary statute is not plain and clear, then the preamble may have effect either to extend or restrict the language used in the body of the enactment.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. NTC (South Maharashtra Ltd.)<\/em> <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n The SC held that, when the language of an Act is clear, preamble cannot be invoked to curtail (\u0915\u092e\u0940 \u0915\u0930\u0923\u0947) or restrict the scope of an enactment.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal<\/em> <\/strong> : The SC observed that the preamble of the Act which stated,
\u201cWhereas<\/strong> it is expedient in the public interest to provide for the speedy trial of the offences specified in the Schedule; it is hereby enacted as follows :\u201d, clearly points out that certain offences were to be tried speedily under a special procedure by the special courts and that the government had a right to choose which cases were to be so tried.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMotipur Zamindary Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar<\/em><\/strong> : The SC disregarded the preamble while interpreting the word \u2018dealer\u2019 in the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950. Since the preamble cannot have precedence (\u0936\u094d\u0930\u0947\u0937\u094d\u0920\u0924\u094d\u0935) over the clear language of the section, it has to be rejected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>4. Commencement Clause (\u092a\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0930\u0902\u092d \u0916\u0902\u0921) :-<\/strong>\n<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n- \n Every Act contains a commencement clause. It gives the date from when the particular Act begins to function. \n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Either date of commencement is given and if not it is left to the government to declare the date of operation of the statute by making a notification in the official gazette.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Example : The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 1(3) states \u201c It shall come into force on the first day of April 1974. \u2026 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, section 1(3) says \u201c It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in official gazette appoint. \n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n As per the Section 3(13) of The General Clauses Act, states. “commencement” used with reference to an Act or regulation, shall mean the day on which the Act or regulation comes into force. \n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n It comes into force immediately after the zero hour on that particular date on which it is expressed to come into force.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Section 5(1) of The General Clauses Act, states that, \n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
\n \u201cWhere any Central Act is not expressed to come into operation on particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Please state : the Short title, Long title, Preamble and date of commencement from the following :\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925<\/strong> (ACT No. 39 OF 1925) [30th September, 1925.] <\/p>\n\n\n\nAn Act to <\/strong>consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession. <\/p>\n\n\n\nWHEREAS<\/strong> it is expedient to consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession, It is hereby enacted as follows:– <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n PART I \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
PRELIMINARY
THE IDENTIFICATION OF PRISONERS ACT, 1920<\/strong> [Act, No. 33 of 1920] [9th September, 1920] <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n An Act to authorize the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n WHEREAS it is expedient to authorize the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others; it is hereby enacted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>5. Definition or Interpretation Clause (\u0935\u094d\u092f\u093e\u0916\u094d\u092f\u093e \u0915\u093f\u0902\u0935\u093e \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u0935\u093e\u091a\u0928 \u0916\u0902\u0921) <\/strong>\n<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n- \n An interpretation or definition clause defines certain words and expressions used elsewhere in the body of the statute.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n The object of such definitions is to avoid repetitions.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The function of a definition clause is to give precision i.e., exactness and certainty to a word or phrase, it must always be read in its context. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n Definition clause is like a small or mini dictionary of that particular Act.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- A definition clause generally begins with a qualifying phrase which may be variously expressed as \u201cunless (except when) there is anything repugnant in the subject or context\u201d<\/strong> or \u201cunless the context otherwise requires\u201d<\/strong>. etc. <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n The definition clause of The General Clauses Act, 1897 begins as, \u201cIn this Act, and in all Central Acts and regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-\u201c\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n The definition should not be read in isolation but in the context of the phrase which it defines. When the word has been defined in the interpretation in the interpretation clause, prima facie that definition governs whenever that word is used\u2026 but where context makes it inapplicable, a defined word used in the body of statute may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- \n There are two exception to this rule. \n <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
i) If the court feels that in the context of a particular provision, the definition clause if applied, will result in absurdity (ridiculousness \/ a logical contradiction) (\u0935\u093f\u0938\u0902\u0917\u0924\u0940 \u0915\u093f\u0902\u0935\u093e \u0935\u093f\u091a\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0930\u092a\u0923\u093e), the court will not apply the definition clause for interpretation of that provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ii) The definition clause of one Act cannot be used to explain the same word used in another statute. But if both the statutes are in pari materia, then it can be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Some definitions of The General Clauses Act : \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n Section 1 (15) “Constitution” shall mean<\/strong> the Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n\n\n\nSection 1(3) “affidavit” shall include<\/strong> affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing;<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Section 1 (22) a thing shall be deemed to be done<\/strong> in “good faith” where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not;\n<\/p>\n\n\n\nSection 1 (7) “Central Act” shall mean<\/strong> an Act of Parliament, and<\/strong> shall include<\/strong>–
(a) an Act of the Dominion Legislature or of the Indian Legislature passed before the commencement of the Constitution, and
(b) an Act made before such commencement by the Governor-General in Council or the Governor-General, acting in a legislative capacity;<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n IPC section 29 : \u2018Document\u2019.\u2014\u201cThe word \u201cdocument\u201d denotes<\/strong> any matter expressed or described upon any substance\u2026..\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two types of definitions : <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n- Extensive definitions :<\/strong> Broad in scope or content <\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Exhaustive definitions :<\/strong> Complete, Restrictive, Limiting. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Indra Sarma v. K.V. Sarma<\/em> , : When the definition of a word begins with \u2018means<\/strong>\u2019, it is indicative of the fact the meaning of the word has been restricted i.e., it would not mean anything else but what has been indicated in the definition itself. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\nTata Consultancy Services v. State of AP<\/em> : The word \u2018include<\/strong>\u2019 when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined. It means it broadens its scope. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\nM\/s Hamdard(Wakf) Laboratories v. Deputy Labour<\/em> Commissioner<\/em>, The Supreme Court observed that when the word \u2018includes<\/strong>\u2019 is used, it is prima facie, extensive. When it uses the word \u2018means and includes<\/strong>\u2019 it will be an exhaustive.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\nRamanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujrat<\/em> : The SC observed that the word \u2018include\u2019<\/strong> enlarges the meaning of the word or expression. The word \u2018denotes<\/strong>\u2019 shows that, the expressions denoted therein are covered within the ambit of that particular word. The expression \u2018deemed to be<\/strong>\u2019 creates a fiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nUnion of India v. R.C. Jain<\/em> : A definition of an expression in one particular Act cannot be imported into another Act if the latter does not define that expression. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\nAvtar Singh v. State<\/em> :- The use of the phrase \u2018that is to say<\/strong>\u2019, in the definition clause is illustrative of the meaning .<\/p>\n\n\n\nState of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha <\/em>:- <\/strong> The JJ group of hospitals was held by the SC an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The court observed that, section 2(j) of the Act is an inclusive definition and therefore liable to be interpreted in an extended way and not in a restrictive way.
( The definition is : “industry” means<\/strong> any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or a vocation of workmen;\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>6. Marginal Notes (\u0938\u092e\u093e\u0938 \u091f\u0940\u092a\u093e) :-<\/strong>\n<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n