Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Restrictive Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    ishaan
    The document discusses the rule of strict construction for interpreting penal statutes. It states that when interpreting laws that impose criminal penalties, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a more narrow interpretation that gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It provides several examples where courts interpreted penal statutes narrowly to avoid unjustly punishing individuals in specific cases where a broad interpretation would have led to absurd or unfair outcomes. The document emphasizes that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted and any real doubt in the interpretation should be extended as reasonable benefit to the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Restrictive Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    ishaan
    1K views3 pages
    The document discusses the rule of strict construction for interpreting penal statutes. It states that when interpreting laws that impose criminal penalties, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a more narrow interpretation that gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It provides several examples where courts interpreted penal statutes narrowly to avoid unjustly punishing individuals in specific cases where a broad interpretation would have led to absurd or unfair outcomes. The document emphasizes that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted and any real doubt in the interpretation should be extended as reasonable benefit to the accused.

    Original Description:

    notes

    Original Title

    restrictive rule of interpretation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the rule of strict construction for interpreting penal statutes. It states that when interpreting laws that impose criminal penalties, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a more narrow interpretation that gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It provides several examples where courts interpreted penal statutes narrowly to avoid unjustly punishing individuals in specific cases where a broad interpretation would have led to absurd or unfair outcomes. The document emphasizes that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted and any real doubt in the interpretation should be extended as reasonable benefit to the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views3 pages

    Restrictive Rule of Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    ishaan
    The document discusses the rule of strict construction for interpreting penal statutes. It states that when interpreting laws that impose criminal penalties, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a more narrow interpretation that gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It provides several examples where courts interpreted penal statutes narrowly to avoid unjustly punishing individuals in specific cases where a broad interpretation would have led to absurd or unfair outcomes. The document emphasizes that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted and any real doubt in the interpretation should be extended as reasonable benefit to the accused.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    or

    Interpretation of Penal
    Statutes or Rule of Strict
    Construction

    The words used In the statutes are a medium of ascertaining


    the Intention of legislature. The words and phrases may have wide
    and comprehensive meaning in their literal sense. If such a wide
    meaning Is taken it may lead to absurd results, hardships or
    inconveniences. Sometimes such an approach may defeat the very
    purpose or object of the Act. Under such a circumstance the court
    should give a restricted meaning to the words used in the statutes in
    order to avoid absurd results and hardships.

    The Rule of Strict Construction says that while Interpreting


    penal statutes the Judge should adopt that meaning which confer
    benefit of doubt to the accused.

    Illustrations provided by Maxwell shows the application of the


    rule of restrictive Interpretation or strict interpretation.
    1. A statute made it felony to break from prison. A prisoner
    broke out from the prison in order to save his life while there
    was fire in the prison. The prisoner should not be convicted
    for felony because a restricted interpretation is warranted.

    2. A statute declared that to make revolt in the ship is piracy.


    The crew In the ship revolted because of the irresistible
    cruelty from the part of master of the ship. The court held
    that they are not liable for piracy because the revolt was
    necessary to restrain the master of the ship from unlawfully
    killing persons on board.

    3. A statute imposed three months imprisonment and


    forfeiture of wages from a servant who has absented himself
    from the service. A workman who has absented himself with
    justification (due to illness) was not liable to be punished
    under the statute.

    The intention of the legislature Is to be collected from the


    words they employ. Where there Is no ambiguity, there Is no need for
    construction. All penal statutes are to be construed strictly. The rule
    says that the court must see that the things charged as an offence Is
    within the plain meaning of the words used. If two possible and
    reasonable construction can be put upon a penal provision, the court
    must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from
    penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty.
    In S.K.D.L.F.W. Industries V. K.V. Sivarama krishnan (1995) (1)
    KLT 124, the court observed thus: the rule exhibits the preference for
    the liberty of the subject. In a case of ambiguity the strict rule
    enables the court to resolve the doubts in favour of the subject and
    against the legislature which has failed to express Itself clearly.

    In State of A.P V. Nagoty Venkataramana (1996) (6) sec 409,


    the S.C held that in the interpretation of penal provisions strict
    construction is required to be adopted and if any real doubt arises,
    necessarily the reasonable benefit of doubt would be extended to
    the accused.

    In S.Gopal Reddy V. State of A.P (AIR 1996 SC 2184), it was held


    that "one of the cardinal rules of interpretation Is that a penal statute
    must be strictly interpreted. They do not ignore the golden thread
    passing through criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed
    to be Innocent till his guilt is proved. The guilt of an accused must be
    established beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge should adopt
    strict construction of penal provision and the benefit of doubt should
    be extended to the accused".

    In Bijaya Kumar Agarwal V. State of Orissa (1996) 5 sec 1, the


    Supreme Court held that if two constructions are reasonably
    possible, one which exempts a person from penalty, it Is to be
    favored.

    You might also like