STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We would like to begin this order by saying that "A repeated and saner thought will always throw more light even on the same subject". More often in criminal cases a question that arose for consideration of the Courts, has been that, the object, scope and purpose of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and power of the Court to exercise the provision, in spite of availability of alternate remedy in general and under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. in particular. In the present case, we are called upon to answer the same question.

(2.) Before adverting to the factual matrix of this case, we feel it appropriate to remind ourselves, certain recognised principles of interpretation of statutes.

(3.) In interpreting any statute or a provision in a statute, one should bear in the mind that statute is an authentic document containing, the intention and expression of the will of the legislature. The Court always bound to make its entire endeavour to bring out that real intention. Every provision of a statute should be construed with reference to its object, purpose, and how it is couched with other provisions of the same statute. Courts should also in its wisdom interpret the law to make the same more effective, meaningful and beneficial, and to achieve its manifest purpose. While interpreting a provision, a construction which would reduce the legislation or the provision a futility, such interpretation should be avoided. Where alternative construction is equally open that should be chosen which is harmonious, and closer to the purpose and object of the introduction of that provision in the statute.