a USHA LAW SERIES - INTERPRETATION ~»:OF STATUTES . Author | Prof. J. USHA, B.Sc.,; M.L., Advocate 32; Narmadha Nadhi Street, , Mahathma Gandhi Nagar, - Madurai - 625 014. Phone: 0452 - 5501604, 0452 - 3101794 > Oriented Essays > ns for Bvery Topic » Separately Answered Short Notes and Casé Laws > > ¢ to the subject for easy Understanding Index for Quick Reference Last five year University questions answered Price: Rs. 130/- ins ays very jeen ithe ‘will ad it theiroor wong PeRoT A ET ly Seat ug sommes Jo vonwiede aanoadsonoy /11 xs 7 7 og s}m09 jo sopdoy, jue}roduy ISOM! SoIOTEM - A ’ psunf Bunoaye suondumssig or ys ay eee LO81 ‘WV SESNLTD [EI9UDH FL -ST Suondunsaig “6 Teg. semngers jo uopeyaiduaret jo suey “ee fre O1z (uonejstay aseurpsoqris) f 9yR JO UMOID oY? BuNoaye soynqeig 49) ae vores] pareBeeq jo uonmadiauy “Ez ; uonviardionut foe Ee s1y3ry weump pue OL spre olsurng so peusorka Ay, xy x sqySny perusUTepUMY JO uorejardsauy, “ZZ AINIEIG JO s}.req 10 UOTe}SId49zUT o2t uoRNINSsUOD Jo uoHweIdsayUy CD O21 spre SIsuEAU] tO peurIUT 9 ast saiyeis feted "07 (uononnsu0g /uoresidroyuy aot asnge BurpreBer imod> yo sonnq) 10 uorseae JuaAdId 03 UOFONHSUOD “61 uonPisidaquy 0} spry (SLNOD) Terstian +g ‘EET saimgers (xe) POST "81 SOIMIS JO UONCOMTSSEID. “bg aL Iet ~ stononysuos oanoEnsey “ZT suoHe|s!ag] Jo sodX}, pure uoneysis: ‘© Tet 7 uopon.ystiss pesyeueg | “OT i samieys Jo 7 oe samyers £10193 a a uonpyardioyur 46 sofdioutid spesougp, /"¢. Ox a (srosepen) eanmroduy] jo uopeyardray 2 uononnsuos o1t oe scopes @ one i Jo: uonejerdsayur jo. Bureoy f! x Pst ee . + £687 FV. sQsNeIO » 7 ae jeiouen pue oInqerg 10 LOHETSIB9] Jo - ; 7 sacar : [eatsoy pue yrodey “Jususoueumeg “et! at eee eee ee SELALVLS 40 NOLLVLANdAALNI ewrofea sono, ONS 1 ; : "‘ iii SHORT NOTES To} rs Absence of Mens rea 2." Acts in ‘Pari Materia’ #% 3. ‘Actus Reus 7 4, Ambiguous Definitions 5... Amending Act and Repealing Act 6 . Amending statutes 7. -Berieficial Construction 8. - Bill *% 9. Byelaws, we 10. * Castis Omissus *% LL. Codification (Codifying statutes) % 12. Colonial Legislation 13. Conditional Legislation ‘ 14. — Conjunctive and Disjunctive enactments +e 15. Consolidating statutes 16. Construction of penal statutes *x. 17 Construction of words in Bonam Partem 18. Construction .to prevent, Evasion ‘or Abuse of law * Contemporanea Exposito 20. Contemporary Interpretation: 21 Context 22. Control of Delegated legislation 23. Conventions and Practices 24. Crime 25. Crown liability 26. Curative statutes 27 De facto Acts 28. De minimis non curat lex 29. Debates and proceedings of the legislature x 30. Declaratory statutes 120,263 24 216. 49,272 28,118 165 264 154 234 471 39 25,219 64% 159 70 30 94 135 59 31,92 aR RH Be RR % e eagaes ae Be wigkea sel ® og 8 » ‘S (2B 8 Sh aa au aga ase oh GT Qo 60. 61. 62 5 iv Definition and Meaning of ‘Interpretation of statutes’ 2 Definition clause (Interpretation-clause) 47, 265: ‘Dictionaries and Text books “"* \ ~ 67,267~ Directory statutes: 32,187 Disabling statutes 30 Doctrine of Desuetude 114 Doctrine of Eminent Domain 177 Doctrine of Pleasure m7 Doctrine of Prospective Overruling 94,186 Doctrine-of Waiver “ 187 Double taxation . 182 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 208 Bjusdem Generis ar Enabling statutes 30 Equitable construction 267 Exception and Saving Clauses 51 Executive Legislation / Delegated legistation 24 Explanation si Explanatory statutes 30 Extemporancous Expositio él External or Extrinsic Aids 56 Finality Clauses 83 Fiscal Statutes 97 Foreign Decisions 63 Fundamental rights and Human rights 191, 202 General Act and Special Act 95 General Clauses Act, 1897 105,238 Golden rule of interpretation 12 Government Publications 58 Harmonious Construction 171,199 Headings 44 Heydon’s Rule(Mischief Rue} 19,273ws StL Leh v LL Ie sit 8 2g 8b 1€ 01 we 69C'TTS 691 6b, See 6% ov 4 vet est 6 181 181 6LT ogt BLT ost 8st est og soinpats sormmens feosy jo woreasdraytn Jo SoTMay saynqeys A1o}oIIC Jo UOTE yaad.r]yUT Jo SOMA, uorpeards97 Jo SOTA juapooartre 1Sey JO aTHat ain WoMeISIBOT JO TEATASY, sornyeys Jo uoneigdo oansadsonod uononnsuog aanorse suontuyep aaisuarxg pue-canonnsoy gaymeys Bureodsy ‘wonersiao1 jo Teodeu saqnyeys [EPPeHA worEnsay, quowystang uonenpund woreonand amnaeys onand ostaoid ayngeys oyeaLd snxon feroNueL Jo aydiountd Ainqezadog/Ammaetonog Jo a1droursd |. Burueour ureyd yo apatountd souRISGng Pte Yel Jo odour acu Plo Patdnpo0 Jo oydrourtg . |, stomod. Aveyfioue, pue.. yeimeprout jo. 1d urd woniqryosd poydunt jo, 1dioutid, siomod pordurt jo ofdiourrd + asdrpgpso otdyourad.. Apredoar aqqnog Jo. 21d1ourtd moMersi84q aIgeMo}oo Jo ardrou symoojo, SsonpapsuntBonoett suondumserg A ae “OSL Ser “eel “col [TOL “oot ace ena eZ elt LT te £9 6% £6 41667 11z 9s it eLt 89% o9t (SP ue Sb ce 1 £9tT'SE 001'Z9 | Lee. 39% gor OLt ere 3s” se Ley veh zs 9s LT suondumeszg jeodax jsure8e udndumnsoig uonranstiog jo uopeyard say pure ayquresty arquresig so¥}od saqtyeys JuoueuLeg stionoe Yo sins Burpueg soqnqeys [eed , 1OpIO suoSeay pure 8399140 uoreyeyd.royut Jo 399! asne]D a1meisqo UON : ANTEIOW. webs SUD soubpred wourttioo ur Sureay soiou pemSre sojineis Aroyepueyy wonviidojuy peo18oy a] Bio) Woneyesdxeyuy TesT a poveBopp Jo onuoo aaneisiBoT ABojSUE pure uoNoY [P27 diqetotn to Burke] soyoeT morsy TeoIpne Jo uoneissdio7 iy uoneist “omy ees ayn jo uoRTOFUT Buhios TeStidisty uonejssdidjuy (Teorreyooyy) [COHOISTH. al. Sitieis Bo] ferasnpyy,, cof v6 “€6 L, THO 16 1 “06 68 i eB i L8 98 “Se $8 eae Coe Ts 08 | 6L& BLL es j “Gre‘Serutiny committees Select Committee Report .,Sovereign.and non sovereign fu Spirit and reason of the law State - Statute affecting the crown of the state Statute must be read as.a whole ction Statute to be made effective and workable 7 Statutes - binding.on the crown 68 Statutes - not bitiding on the crown 67. _, Statutes dealing with procedure 96 .° Strict Liability..." 163 Sub Delegation 217 Substance of matter 152,155 Suppression of mischief "133 Supreme and Subordinate Legislation, 24 Tax and Fee 145 Taxing statutes’ 30 Temporary statutes 29. lc ‘Types of legislation 33 Ultra vires — procedural 224. Ultra vires - substantive 219 Vicarious liability 142,162 * - Denotes Important Short Notes Be aoe sere § 10. al. 12. 13. 14 15. 16. 47. 18. 19. 20. 21 22, 23. 24 25. 26. ‘viii CASE LAWS A: DeM. Jabalpur, Vs, S. Shukla. : 199 ‘A. Madan Mohan Vs. K.Chandrasekhara (1984)"""" "- 13 ‘AG. for ontario Vs. A.G. for CANADA 1896 + A.C, 226 214 AK. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras _ 185,195 ‘AK. Roy Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1986 S.C. 2160 275 ‘AR. Antulay Vs. R.S. Naik, AIR 1988 S.C.1531 277 ‘AV. Fernandez Vs. State of : Kerala AIR 1975 S.C. 657 5 279 A.V NVenkateswaran Vs. RS: ‘Wadhwani 85 Agarwal lyengar Vs. The State 222 Air India Vs. Nergesh Meerza 221 Allingham Vs. Minister of Agriculture 218 Alridge Vs. Islington Corporation 224 Ameer-un-Nissa Begum Vs- Mahboob Begum 115 Ashwin Kumar Vs. Arabinda Bose 50. Atlas cycle Industries Limited Vs. State of Haryana 149 Attorney-General Vs. Sillem 168 Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab. . 103 B.P. Puttaraja Vs Bangalore University AIR 1980 KART 39 -~ 280 B.P. Royappa Vs. State of T.N 194 Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 198, Baldeo Krishna Sahi Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Limited 168 Bank of England Vs. Vagliano Brothers 120,291 Banwarlal Vs. State of Bihar = 222 Baru Ram Vs.Prasanni 129 Bashesher Nath Vs. Income Tax Commissioner 187 Benares Das Vs. State of M.-P. 21698 su9qoxl “SA “YT ‘SeTEIST B2{d FOUDASOTH 1st FW Jo 2eIg “SA parUArT SOLISUPUT uOIseID, IZ (9021 DS ZOOS ATV) Aequrog ‘suzows 1D yo sowaqog “SA “PIT SAENSNPUT wISeIO sb yO eAKeEYS toy emaeBueED “SA Add TEMYSOTELIOD O8T Ob. qefung jo ares “SA THEUTPIOD So mer] fepads “SA MET [e299 eee amuify Jo orag “SA YBuIS KeyedeueD O@t AemoTeD ‘sp Semoren: cet (12 "HAO TT (Esai) HNOUMbICD "SA OPS 6 Yl (a) ePrefoud pur 1emns “SA soyadsuy poo Ih “HUTsey 5p NETUTES 10 OMG "SA WNBeE, CUAL set Aequiog jo 171g “SA Eresered “NV 18% spe o's T (h661) Suremg “Wa. “8A WoneIOdI0D TSA IST weUOISSTUNUTOD XBL THTEOM “SA BURIPTNSD “ 1ZT'STC, “a N.jo a1ers “SA peseld BTEIMT bby roqieu UreIEN “SA eIOTEUL EBM ort ‘erpuy jo uorun. "SA payuir] erper dort 1% (6961) yexefrin Jo aeIg "SA HANS rpUNE “AT OL eyno[ea Jo worperodz09 ‘8A CG Y JO A019 +8 ‘ysapeig eAypeN Jo ores “SA EUGENE, zst yseperg renin Jo areis “sa pueyodaad ST ' uosdug “sa Sed eet wonexodiog s18sy ours] “SA ex0UTTTIND 89 “ sumpaxep] “SA 10d009 Stl €107 OS v66T AlV VoRBIOdI05 SA preOg TEUTUOITOD “F .-eIpuyyo uarun “SA, aiyusg yoreesoy pus uoReoNpY souNstES : reyg remy rey Ped sa Kequiog: ‘xv3-oM109UT JO -TOUOTSSTUIUIOD jiodsuway peow ‘dW aL LL “OL “SL “BL eb, CL TL 104 69 “89 “29 ee A ee on oB ed. sordou, x Sel IuSUTEIBAGH [2907 pure SuIsNoy 10 saisiUNA, ‘SA ‘PIT “OD WwOUNSeayy PINSIG pue PYSAIOD “TS 89 SUMO "SA DID OS oz a Jo owas SA Oey UEUMEIUIYD — “6b 6ZE Soy ueyoururey ipeg “sa weg nity HeuTYD ogy 80% THC ™eN ‘ep reury SA ferqoyg.sopeyg “Ab Bee UM sATeq eipueyd ‘op oF HoRNSEIY ONGNg JO 1oWeNC "SA JjpUeYD “Sb 0c Serpeyy Jo a7eIg “SA ueferTe10g weyeduEYD ph Gel PEswaTUM SA UNIeYD eb sla peseig BEM SA SOMTeLIENUED “Tb est ‘Ort 290YJO XBL, [eoToUTUIOD SA Sueduog Burnownuey eine ennofeD “Tp 86 (Loos T (961) “essrau podg “sa snumg.peurmeyoWD “Ob eb eIpuT Jo worup “SA "09 [POD MIPIM —6E 6ci uossq sj uMOIg = - ge 16% (leg “aH @ - OT6T) PIT SzOI0W Wid “SA PHT “0D eFeureg'skemurery josg. “Le 691 Poom “SA pusig oF SOT Kequiog LTO "sA-uoresodiog Aequog “gg 0S oseo Je] ueuey-YBUIS BOY . “PE ss eddepung ‘sq ifuryg | ee 98T ysopesg eAypeyy joowis.sA emg “ze eT + (6€6b MOS MV ZOO) PIT 34d TW . eng euewed ‘sq Ausseatan seSeuneyg “TE vz BIpy] Jo urns, seSeUIEYG — ‘OF GLI (Zept OS 200d avy v's Super, AME ‘SA [euOHeUTAIUT ee “6% pie ‘(et Te-0s fels661}oung ‘uepeiodi09 ~*.3” Tedpramyy “SA sroupo pues pyyop aBioy Jereug] “BT. cor art TeYTE JO areis ‘SA poiury Auedwop: Grnumy pesuag '* -27 onresea ‘sordox, on 'S me xTi i a | S Re tepies Paes i 79, H.V. Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque 1290 =e 80. Hamdard Dawakhana Vs. Union of India #8104. Kasthurilal Vs. State of U.P f 71 81. _ Hari Shankar Bagla Vs. ST. of MP. 2144195. Kesavanand Bharathi Vs. State of Kerala 82" Harish Chandra’ Vs. Stiite of M.P veg oe Bd3 JAIR 1973 8,C.'1461- ie wen 283 83.. .Harishankar Bagla Vs. State of M.P: & in Késavanatha Bharathi Vs. State of Bihar ‘261 “Re Dethi Laws Act). pe 218} Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. 196,207 84. Hammam Singh Vs, R°T.O. Authorities ooo Khattri Vs. State of Bihar “206 88. Harpal Singh Chauhan Vs: State of Uttar Pradesh 130 | 192 Kruse Vs. Jolingon : 228 Hussainara: Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary. 10. Kuriakose Kurian Vs. Suramma aT a7 State of Bihar 7 p95 | E11. LLC. of India vs Prof. Manubhai R.Shah AIR* - LC. Golak Nath: Vs, State of Panjab AIR 1967 ; BL coheneasttles Pee Be ta 1643 a1 | 112. Ly, Robert D Souza Ve., Executive Engineér, 7 | LT. Commissioner Madras Vs. Meenakshi Mills, 4 ‘Southern Railway 266 aa. 7 Magura 7 ” tgg | 113. Lockyer Vs, Gibb : 42. "Indian Association of Lawyers Vs. Principal | 114. Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta 42 oe Secretary 1994 cr. LJ. 533 (AP) (FB) gq } 115. M. Ismail Farugui Vs. Union of India 183 Indian ‘cable company Lid Vs. Collector of | 116. MM. Pentiah Vs. Veeramallappa | , 17 oi a 14g | 17. M. Satynarayana Vs. State of Karnataka a Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. State of Haryana 193 AIR 1986 S.C. 162 : fee 93 el Weuiasege on, of India 268 | 118. MJ. Sivani Vs. State of Karnataka {1995_AIR_ : 3. s i 3 94. Jai Singh sae Bank of Cochin 209 Sew.2774] ; : 199 Jai Singh’ and another Vs. Union of Indian * 149. MLV. Joshi Vs.-M.U.Shimpi 168 95. Jha: 41 120. M/S Aspinwall. & Co. Ltd. Vs. I. T. Commr. 88. Javer Ve, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 180 Ernakulam (2001 AIR SCW 3444) 149 97. “John Calder ‘eabueauenes aa Company 109 121. M/S British Airways Plc. Union of India and oa Hie s), 's. Powell 133 ¢ others (2001 AIR SCW 5197) 172 uglimiane Augusto de Piedade Barreto Vs * 122. M/S Ethiopian Airlines Vs. M/S Stic Travels ronseca 99. Kadra Peh 96 {P) Ltd, (AIR 2001 SC 2659) 133 teu eae hadya Vs. State of Bihar 207 123. M/S. Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing TOL, Ratna yaavan Ve. State of Orissa 184 Company, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales 102. Kameshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar 44, Tax, AIR 1981 SC 16856 (1657) 149 103. Kashi-Prasad Vs ‘Stat 183,201 124, Makkan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 218 . State 43 125. Manaranjan Das Vs. State of West Bengal 35el vounjiom si SA pr] (E1puy) Puey UoIuTETIY get s90yJO KEL persieurtiioS SA parTwyy seuIsnpuy pus dinp soueroy o1l (ese OS e861 wiv) dn jo aig “Sq peserg remyssurey, eLE SsaxeO SAA sel SBIPEW JO WEIS “SA Tedeyy ysourey, es OMI BL STS “SA OTK puwtpurey, 6LL serum) edioranyy “sa eUYsEDeUurey Tez, d'n Jo s3e1S “SA pesesd urea oLE iB PINOGMON “SA “A ost sour Jo ofS “8A PUYSTDTEUTEY Fey +L (9861) “PYT ta doysiom, fer K2eog $/W “sa uereg Uuepueunysey ott eyereurey Jo a1BIS “SA TIEN NYBEY “Sa v9 a “oan SA A Sst : eIpuy Jo wor “SA OCW set ‘eipuy jo uoruy “$A I9dv05 ‘O'a bl 2onsnp wopuoy "SA "a +8 aioutifin "dd eunquny Teoddy ROPOWSA 68z "Seb “Siv TO6T ieitwo7 "sa w9aND Toe tzt.” “" eye Jo o7Big “sq tysorend ser apery jo preog ‘Ss, “ py] “09.39 TeH ‘s0778ND ve ? suouitizaAGD yeoo' pue Gayshoyy Jo adisratiy “SA “pyT “OD SmEID Sha soz. opensrniipy Mec “s/\ SPIES ‘reqUEYS wad ole °°" “eppuj jo wortiq “sA"zeared ayeas "SA peserd + eer fosrauswOg: jo yeeg “SA vefreyyNW reuMy eTTTTeId eygry's,peseig ysouwp.eMIed Aequid” jo o7e1g ‘SA AekeuT, SuemMpued got 0% (beet Os coz NIV) NL JO oVwIg “SA OVI exXepUNsEUIpEd TL BIpUy OF aFeIG Jo &rejos29§ “SA 09 uOHeBIAeN. meaIg “O'g 86T BIpU] Jo TOIUN “SA BIW O'd Sb Aequiog 119 "SA ferysoy peurresaUG est juno) Jeg “SA CorpUTYeW “N'O. £ O&S Anredpramny PPGEPAMIEY “SA. STI TMCUO AOURIN AON, zor PT (d) suopemsuy 9j2]duI0D, “Sy paruny erected powemssy eIPUL, MON ost xe, 9uTOSu] Jo squowssnmmeg, sa ssspexy, Be] TeUOHEN € asnzy ejourey feureg pemsayeyy “sq reqryeN, Steoze “BEpul Jo Worun “sp reUMMy wxpUdTEN 68T 61S W'S OS6T THPC jo. 21e1g “SA BIEN “AN: €b seal weoltey “sq Aopued TNC TeMysHEN, €L (S961) ‘uewsefey Auomny. jrodstex, ammIg."SA pleog redionmyy 8st _AequIOg Jo ag “SA UTeSSNyy JOSqboy, es . BD “O'A “SA. 1Opeds “pyow, ete aeHMINOD Bory WHOL, 8) HISEX pouEREYORY TST xe L UITeOM : Jo souorssimm0D 's, weUy Hy powueyow Le unas A Wsnoutslzdg jo 10K ObT N JO TAS "SA Pomresy urereqyeyy Ob qefand Jo e1eig -s, yepreyoueyy 88e f ESI ‘O'S Z661 AIV 6er YsopeIg THA Jo omg “sq Terueypoqueyy, 02z. tneys teumy ysodnye ysortreg “sa, aopEonpy, Areptiorss Jopmeog ayag enysereyeyy pe SbT “LbL ObT “Sb ber “eb80, 1. 82. 188. 184. — 185. 186., 187. 188. 189, 190, 192. 193. 194, 195. 196 197. 198, 199, 200. “f79.~ Ruder Vs. Franks * “RMDC Vs. State of Bombay “Rogers Vs. Dodd Rudul Shaw Vs. State of Bihar Rule in Heydon’s case (The Mischief Rule) Rulé in 1.C.‘Golaknath Vs! State’ of'Punjab Rule in Rylands Vs: Fletcher 8. R, Chowduri Vs. State’of ‘Punjab (AIR 2001 SC 2707) S.K. Habi Bullah Vs. ITO ’ S.P, Gupta Vs. Union of India S.R, Chuduri Vs. State of Punjab {AIR 2001 SC 2707) Santi Swarup Sarkar Vs. Pradeep’ Kumar Sarkar (AIR 1997 Cal 201) Saraswathi Sugar Mills Vs. Haryana State Board Satwant Singh’ Vs. A.P.O., New Delhi, Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India Satwant Singh Vs. Assistant Passport“ Officer; New Delhi Seaford Court Estates Ltd. Vs. Asher Shajahan Vs.-Mrs. Kamala Natayana Shamrao, Vs. Union Territory Sharat Chandra Nanda Vs. Union of India Shelley Vs..L.C.C. Shiv Dev Singh Vs. State of Punjab Shrimant Shamrao Suryavarishi Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (AIR 2002 $C960) Smith Vs. Hughes (1960 - 1 — W-L.R. 830) Smithies Vs. National Association of Operative Plasterers «SCC (CRP}SBAY 2 7S Smt. Kewal Pati Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1995.AIR'SCW 2236:(1995) 3 SCC 60: 1995 ‘Smit, Sudhira Bala Roy Vs: State of West Bengal State of Bihar Vs. Bhagirath State of Bihiai' V8.8, Roy AIR 1966'SC'1995: Staté of Boribay Vs,United Motors’ (india) Lithited and Shifomani Gurdwara ' Prabandhak Cofhrhittee VS. Raja Shiv Rattan ‘Singh State of Bombay Vs? F.N.\Balsara: State of Bombay Vs. Vishnu Ram‘Chandra State of Kerala Vs. Mathai Verghese State of Kerala Vs. Ramaswamy lyer‘arid Sons State Bank of India Vs. Workmen*of State Bank of India State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H. George State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi (1995 AIR SCW 3701) i State of U.P. Vs: Mohammad Nooh States Vs, Barnes. Steel Alithority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers (2001 AIR SCW 3574 200152 ‘T.Barai Vs. Hénty AK Hoe T.C. BhéjaVs-'G.T. Thakur T.O. Allepy Vs. M.G. Punnese ‘Tejkumar Balkrishna Rula Vs. A.K. Mohan. Ten Bug Tain Vs. Collector of Bombay The Quarry Owners Association Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2870 Toronto Corporation Vs. Toronto Railways TTMA Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2002 AIR SCW 4957) ~199.. 130 169 Ag 85 182 168 168 85 266 225 199 85 218 133 109 61 221 220 78 45 176soyNgeIS UT pasn SUD} oxy Jo uoereid.ayU Jo ssodord ayy UT SOBPH Pure S1okmeT Jo sup, jo Bunsemw oxy saxes vonererdsaiyy jo saros pousgerse Apeoss Ge sammmeis Jo woeIsdz97U Jo ANAS oP 20) pau oUt UAIM speap woponzsuog 10 aoAwadrasu] Jo Zurueoy [OUT :T UALEVHQ 1- NOISIAIG get Bb ssraydeyg Sumsud.g | ayy ur Apms 0} SujoB are Kays eya oy se wary Arourums ® Uf) {nOUyf.o3 Zepeer auy sdyoy yoafqns ot Jo suTPNO yp se-“TueroduTE Brsaanzerg Jo uoHeresdsau] Jo Aprys ous 0} ouTMO Uy SALALVIS JO NOLLVIGUdMaLNI dO AGALS AHL OL ANITLNO NV {gz sardey) sapunss08y papracsd ore suonoog queyrodury 10s suoreueidxe Um suorstaoid yoy aie_ ey, “IOV SesMeTO. [e9U9H “pe soadey ur pazenqey swapce yy T2897 TV (eg 01 g1 sardeiyo) sataeys omoads jo uonejardieuy (21 0191 aerdeyo) “‘uopesardsony /uononnsuoD Jo sodA] SUL, (pT @ ef aordego) soinieig Surssrpog pue Zunepyosuog ‘Burpuewy sqearaagi feadoy ‘juomaducwruiog 0} Bunefer suoisaosd = 5 (at 09g tordey) soinqerg jo worejeadaayuy BurpseBor suondwnsosd {Z,0x-¢ JeyBYD) UONwIeId107U] 07 SPF TeIOUSD : Eee (p03 Tasideyo) saimieig Jo, uonwiesdioiuy jo sopdiourig Te19UeD Beet {WOISsTAtp SurmMojTy oy) “sopun. poysssep. At us0q sey sointeig Jo uoRBierdezu,, jo sngeTTds oup “309/GNs oD. Apnys-oynusios: pue qusrusauos ‘sea jo asodind ot 40% «SALALVIS JO NOILVLAAGAGLNI» 4O SUALAVHO JO NOISIAIG yorreg “SA OsTUSHIM UEMPOOH “SA. SONTIM, Aequaog ‘IauoIssTamMo0D xe | SUI0NU] “S/, SOREN (ggs€ OS 7007 IV) ‘PIT O'S" ‘SA uOISsTMMMTOD AroyenSey AOUOOTA “a “MM LvLE OS 0007 UlV “‘TuepueypuEyy sepueurpey] eApiy “SA fuepuetpueIy “N UTYSTA poiury] Aueduog sowemsuy TUCHeN “SA “FeyFeY seprany “pouty ueyjsefey Jo aye1g “SA THYeACAPIA poremseuysuy ‘SA epedosnus,, PIpU] Jo WORT "SA UEUTE NEO, §SZ ‘O'S 8S6T UIV ax0shy Jo aIBIg “SA NeAdq eUBUTEETENTIOA TSLT OS b96I Aly “UsePe td eaypuy Jo ereig “SA SIN. HO Pre cont ‘s'A: f e%9T OS 0O0E AIV aropesueg ‘xe Surooy jo fouolssTuTEOD “SA PYT aveALd SOIG"pue Fedoesies “WA 196% OS 0007 ATW “PFT “Wd “CD way Hiady “8, PIMPED “erpuy jo jue”. pov, eigey jedop uepeyw! ‘sa eIpULjo udTUA, iqqui¢ “sj erpuy yo woran, Prey (ovde-os “00e NIV) Mod HosueH “Sa eIPUL Jo, worEA ulEp ERUBYS LRH “SA preog Apueta oes “dN. ‘ysing tepreg ureneseyg “SA WstIg deptpms. “Tet Obz “6et Bee “Le ft “seo “bes “eet “Eee Tet: uiso;deais with different definitions of the term ‘Intérpretation;ofistatutes’ by different Jurists. Th¢yapTER 5: deals with General Aids to Interpretation. For map , Of Interpretation, the difference between thdnterpretation, the Court has to make reference either from the importance “ikem Anterpretation’ and ‘Construction’ the five basic rulej+atute itself (intrinsic aids to interpretation) or outside sources of Interpretation likes‘the intention: of the legislators’ nsic’ dids to- interpretation}. ‘There is-a subtle, difference. ‘principle of plain’meaning’, ‘statute to be read as a wholebetween the terms “Interpretation” and “Constitution” which ‘HAI DIVISION It etc., are dealt with ‘plained in'this chapter. This chapter also coritains the duties _ bf the Court’ regarding interpretation. CHAPTER 2: namely General principles of interpretation statutes explains the duty of the'Court to interpret’ the statut. and while interpreting, the object of interpretation of statut must. be clearly understood by the Courts. This Chapter als! speaks in detail-about the kinds of interpretations namely thi literal-and logical (grammatiéal) interpretation. It also explai the golden rule of interpretation i.c., the plain meaning o} statutemust be followed, even if it is gives ‘rise t inconvenience, hardship or injustice to the observer. ‘Th chapter deals with four rules of interpretation namely Mischi : Rule, Rule of Caueus Omisaua, Rule of Ejusdem Generis an ‘7:namely External or Extrinsic aids to interpretation eee ie te tageadiee cone also a sub chapter of Chapter 5. In Interpretation of Statutes he external aids other than the statute are considered. The.’ : : lexternal aids includes History of the Act, objects and reasons for CHAPTER 3: ; namely Legislation and types of legislations scting the Act, Textbooks and Dictionaries, International seluns logon beng the main source of satus somone one Putietonn Tote are way 38 of legislations namisly Supfeme and Subordinate legislations ee eres OF interpretation. and sub division of subordinate legislations. The chapter alsc in detail deals with delegated legislation as a type of legislature. PTER 6: deais with Internal or Intrinsie aids to interpretation or Parts of Statute. A statute starts with a Title ‘Short title and Long title), Preamble, Marginal notes, headings, efinition clause, Provisions, Illustrations, Exceptions and avings clauses, Explanations and ends with Schedules. . There e totally 15 number of parts in a statute which are immensely .seful 2s.internal.aids to construction of a statute. Each part of ¢ Statute is explained in detail. : DIVISION Ut CHAPTER 8: namely Statutes affecting the crown of the State 7 ‘says that “King can do no wrong and king is above law” but this CHAPTER 4: Classification of Statutes devices it; Presumption has limited application as under many statutes, the | claskification. from, the’ point, of codification, duration, Crown is also subject to the provisions of such statutes. The \ application, nature etc., On the. above basis, statutes arc Chapter explains the 5 classes of persons coming under the term. | classified as codifying statutes and consolidating statutes “Crown” who enjoy legal immunity. Statutes which are not | : temporary and permanent statutes, etc. Thus there are nine Dinding on the Crown and which are binding on the Crown are explained in detail with Case laws. The liability of Crown for torts types of classification of statutes and contracts are also explained separately.ssoyryeys aanueysqns pue jempscord ose pure samyers [wosy/Teuad ut aiqvondde Apsour br vormezardsojUF JOINS SL, “sayNIEIs jo LoREIesdIOIT IOUS 9 Sunejay som Teurpzeo wsAds ose ax, “sonjeuod zo yoOUTYSTENG Sujoiojus pire souayo we Bunoeus saznyeis oF oqeondde S1 woRONTsMOS eAOHASON sardeyo SL ‘LT AALEVHO : szopenazayy Poy Smet 2g05 unin sansneyxo are UORLyerdi9}UT Jo Son aup ‘suONE ISH} mogul pue Sresjam Tepos ul “Be log “Axeroyousq ou] Apauios oy SdenSue{iorp Jo Bureour sfqissod ysspua-ouy UE eynaTIs.P qoudzoquT 0 Si, uopansysuoe reroyouo” 19}deUD SLL OT AALAVHO eee fo “sates Azoisanrp pure adnesodun yjog ysmBunsrp 01. posr> smey os8o ‘yim poureydixe ospe are soynyeys Arojoomp Jo Saltiay oc Ayrepranrs, "yeiep tr poure[dxe pue eansneyxo ese soynqeIs oaryesadury Jo,UoRejesdioyut jo som ouL “ApenuEYsANS pokago oq eur jeaunseuo yoamp e seoseym ‘Ayoexe pure APMIS THEA paydunos'eq, qsnut usunowue Aroyepureur 10 eaneredurr uy ~ se3nquys Aro;0071C pure (Ado;epuem} carerodury 50 aonyjeidi07U] (St AALAVHO A NOISIAIG ‘ e ‘mep uouruoD repun sucisisoid omiels Bunsixe-a1d op wos. o71gVIs, Jo, WeUROUD, “OE soynqeys SuLgrpo jo worrerasdzorur jo sory (g) “TuouTEY Ted Jo IOV aigurs 8 ursyy sxettr pu’ ordoy, ceqnonzed & 0} Bupejes suotstaord AxeynyeIs au Te JO woReTIoo “ot “soMIeIs BuneprOsuoS OF Bunejos soy (2) “samEIg BoPudty oj Bunvres uoNEIO:IONT jo sophia (1) Sarna yo 198 oyeredas ¢ way swap seanaTa® ‘Burdgipog pue Shepwosucg ‘Buypuowny Ajpurry :yT UALAVHD ‘oxory pauire|dxe'are yDTya ‘Z6gT Iv sesnlep feIoUaH on} yo 1:998 bile (@) 9°98 Aq pouizoso8 St aimyeys v Jo Teataeal “opraonsod foaeunsog parie> sy Sras ‘ieadex Awe gnouam uoss AupiTes ht soso] a} ‘UOTEIMp Buo] 1} Pash, Jou st oy We J “pouTeyax? ose st Dy poteados pue yoy Buipudizy usomiaq sousseyeP oud rx peadoy Joy S9]N1 apraosd Joy-asne]D [e19U9H aU JO VOCS “PT'9AS “9-22S “wour|eUS M2e Pika poqeadaz oq Aeur joy Sunset uy “poureydss o7e Ure 268th yoy SOSNEID [eIIUAD JO TE'PES ‘OTS ‘go9g {€T) 99g JepUt papwsosd ore suOReysiBa] jo WwoUFousUAAIOD SuIpseBI! soynt oY Siraeis 30 woTETsI39] B JO jUsMEUWTEOS Se Umous, St gig) pue uosse Tenuepreesd ou soassoas Wt Aep dun we Ulpnesedo oyut sauz09 JV’ [eNUID V “SwOFIVISTSAT Jo peayasy (puv qeadex ‘quoweswomueD otf tls STOP -BT Aa LAVHO, AY NOISIAIG \ ‘sine a809 THEA pourefdxe/ st uondy Toso] Jo uoRvoyddy [Surpreos yo auf Jo suoHOUNY. oH “INO ope st uondumsas4 [pus uonoy eso] vosmiog SOUP ouL SHE Areor.I0% Top ‘orqs sie} upeyz99 Jo 2ouRISTXS au), BURUNSSE st 71 /,pawaeP ‘SL, wisoy v Buisn Aq poveoso St MOREL THOT :CT UaLAvHO ‘valje eanoadsone? «oy asuaiojox Ouest wpm Afovezedes poureydate ore sourpi9 ‘S10 Ie Senuoo ‘uorsssoons Butemsos saytters says Sormmme-TeHeds (dpeieredes pauredxe st. Bupmssos0 oanoedsosd jo autnoed Vasey sanoadsonor oy sousz9yos nue Soynyers ‘Kioye re[99P _pue sairieys Bugpaotae “somnyeIs [BIOUCH Ow POPLALD oF ‘samawiS eeunsdsoner st ypqeuy sovess Aqqeompmods: aimaeis. oun sso souneed uy pagoadsoad ae SayNIEIS [1Vq ST OMI TEIAuNS Op RAINAEIS guy Jo wopyerodo sapnsodsoxjed - moge Seeds 211 NakLavAO “ghd 3865, Him pore Osyé sx Sant@i® af osteo Aiyeuy Sqy! “boynterd ovp UF Sums fed ey woh orstet Bree jue siimog.Jo worompstinl otf Tied 25ided> Poy, sumo oF ssaoge 2aay 02 rusts at axEH a1doee PHS soynds!P ‘reay oj somod ayy daey S12NOD [Te FEU SE wwe JO tomdumsost aysed: au, “srinog’ TAD. Areutps0 Jo Gor sfe1 prom oyeIS.e wos sou] SUNOS jo woporpstmf Suyjoaye suondumsox -oao ‘senqers jeuod pure Buncey ‘guoneistaat aanoadsonAt exis Auodosd ‘ainrers'e Jo ATP MOAMNEHL?, pay, uonduinsas4 fo sad&y ovo AyUaM] Oye 2zeUL -soan7eIs JO, UoHeoidsaT Foy wewyiodust st yore ,wORGUMSdy SUES °6 waiavHo 1xPEL LELLELLLELLLL ELL LLL LLL LLL LLL Lt 7. MEANING OF INTERPRETATION ‘OR CONSTRUCTION Lee waa Cimportant) Model Questions: : 1. Define: Interpretation. Explain the meaning and rules of interpretation 2. What are the different rules of interpretation? cA Statute must be read as a whole’ — How far.is this principle applicable in interpretation. 4, Write Short noté on : (a) Meaning of Interpretation (b), Plain meaning (c) Intention of legislators (d) interpretation, arid ‘Construction | Synopsis: A. Introdtiction B. Definition and Meaning of Interpretation C. Importance of Interpretation D: Difference between Interpretation and Construction E. Rules of Interpretation I. Intention of the legislature Ti. Statute to be made effective and workable Til, Statuté must be read as a whole IV. If statutes. meaning is plain, effect must be given V. Principle of plain meaning F. Conclusion A, Introduction: Modern Statutes, drafted. by. legal experts, are expectedto_be perfect so that there is no necessity for interpretation of such-statutes? But in practice, the Courts spend much of their valuable time to ascertain the true seerning of inconsistent and ambiguous words in such statutes) Thus when perfect drafting becomes a remote possibility, the alternative way is to formulate rules of interpretation. The age old experience and process of avoid Spending their valuable time in interpretation of statutes. 20 interpretation have ted. to formate certain rules of Interpretation so_that the judiciary and the lawyers could wo, 14, B,, Definition and Meaning of “Interpretation of statutes’: | | 1. ‘Salmond defiries » Interpretation ‘18 a: process by: whieh, Coiirts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislations. Such interpretation | is. through the medium: of authoritative forms in’ which it is expressed: (2. Cxoss defines - Interpretation is aprocess ‘by which Courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision: It is for the purpose of applying it to the situations before them. > 3. Prof. Gray defines ~ Interpretation is a process by which a Judge constructs the words from a statute book. He Sonstructs a meaning which he belieyes to be that of legislature or which he proposes to attribute it. 4. Justice Hidayatullah defines Interpretation as a rule of construétion of statutes that the judicature, in their interpretation, have to. discover and act upon the meaning or sententia legis (logical meaning). Normally, Courts do not look beyond the litera legis (literal meaning). 5. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. Vs. Asher, Lord Denning has observed “A Judge must not alter the: material of which the’Act is woven but he can and should iron ‘out the creases”. 6. In Tejkumar Balkrishna Rula Vs. A.K. Mohan, the Court explained interpretation as follows: “The Court must interpret the law as it needs. While @ purposive interpretation is permissible, where two interpretations are possible, the purposive interpretation must be. such as it preserves the constitutionality of the provision”Suppeur sey jo seo00ud Peuuow orp yBnonp Su08 saye ans Ysay e Aq AUS ax0p aq eo ST, “Forpeur SF Aq $onuoo 07 popuaruy se Suruvour sit arepep 0 Imes snowed Cue feadax 10 puoure \qhop ou “eo amyo[so] OY, “PIM v Jo GOREIOUOD ay epIsmo 40 ur Buypey saseo suraproq Jo AMop oy) skempe st axe, “sou, UE SIO} JOLY Ul sjUDIEFOI JUSTO 0 FUUTFoI Jo aigedes are aBenSue] Aue Jo spi6q “,S7UDIJDx 0} sgouDIaFor Teyuour oyemurys yeu) spoqurs sxe soseryd pue spiom, “spzom Jo Supmaur jo wraiqoxd & Sf WoTE}axdsoVUT Jo wo}qoxd OIL, + “OINIETSiB9] St} JO USHUSTUT ou 3Yoos 0} Aressaoeu ‘sousy ‘st 3] oyyE}s & Buyseue Joye oBoUID Aur JEU sooumysumox pus suonens etn Anny easaioy 0) omyeysiBoy oateuifeun ysour aup Joy wana aiqyssodurr st yy (Aoopred 10 Any wWBnow s,9u0 Aoquoo jouues sBenSub] sous] Surueour syuysp 20 asmaid Aare Suyaeiy Sjoqusés syfAa—s jou ore ‘Bensuey kaw Ur “spIoM ° ; E ‘omngeysiBo] ou Jo woRuSzUT 1 oun siussadad' yorum dorivisidiajur tein Seo0u 0 Seu pnog.ovp ‘uoRByaIcio}tiT ouo et oF0Ur 0} uodo st uOIstAOId Ao MIEIS-© J] SINGE|SIBS] Si JO UoMUaUL ony ax~p uodn yor 0} st amyeorpnl o~Gnp sy Jsyfeur Sif yo ~woRuezur, oy. WIS B Superdiayur jo em PetorUsAUOS. oY, | tepueoyTadrs omres 043 Survey, se poorssopim are Y0q oSesn. uouniz0s !uryng “oouvyrodun orurepyse: Jo Awe $f uoNONySuOD /pue ‘uorejerdsayur ussMI0q wonoUnsip om ru sx }YBNOM Jo [ooyos puoses ou, “pOYom Ur upAts pue Woy UMC sIusUDP Woy jumerp ore'suorsnppues Yong * "p97: 9tp Jo worss2:dso joasip amp puofeq a Teun swelqns SumpreBor suioisnyuCS yo SuperP St IL “stay SH AjsISUT Jou pue mel yo WIS Sy} UT suorsNpOUCS 3e~ “wayRD Ajorour st ‘puey Jomo out UO “uoroRASHOD b Y uonejexdioamy 50 sopmgy 1 #PINZEISTSOT O43 Jo uoresUT T _Sexaoo 0} papuoyur royNe oy | yora wopr oures oy] woyp WOW, aatTop 0} sx8yo-Buyqeus Lo} JO pue £osu0d 0} papussur-zoyME ayy YM et sprose | ‘zoaamol “ye i Joofqo ay} Aires 0} § 9}, uedo jou st yf Wu) sHBSUT HORBICIdION jo wuoy Aue jo (Furmvoul).esuos ons} 9yj7ino. Surpuy Jo 18e ou}, Sf uorTe}erdoVU] ‘Ses sistInf JO Joouss eo. "T {UOFONASUOD puL woTye}eIdF0;UT WI9MZ0q, FOMSIOIG, “A _Seatioo 0} papuayut oye 247 Yorum. vapr sures ou, wWorP Woy aALP O1 soto, SuNqeUe the. words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law”, 410.“A right constriction of the Act’, says LORD PORTER; “can > pgnly be attained if, S whole scope and object together with ‘an analysis of its wording and the'circumstintés i Which” it is enacted are’ taken ‘into consideration”. “- 11.A statute is a creation of legislature. The conventional way of interpretation of statute is to find out the intention of its taker. In other words, the duty of the Court is tovact upon the true intention of the legislature, especially when more than ‘one interpretation, is possible for @ statutory provision. 2.The main problem of interpretation is the problem of finding out the exact meaning-of the words as an expression to Communicate a particular thought. Words of any language are capable of referring to different meanings in different contexts and times. Especially in border line cases, janguage can be misunderstood. After Jegislation, even the legislature cannot itsel can only amend or repeal by separate law making clauses. J.In some cases, the judges perform creative function of interpretation by adding certain words and many.a time filling in the gaps. This is strictly not correct from the conservative ~ approach and. only search for express or implied intention is called for. The intention of legislature can. be found out by the jneaning of the words and by the purpose, object er reason ‘and spirit of the statute. However it is not the duty ‘of judges to invent something which they do not find within the words of the text. “Wach word, phrase ot sentence is to be construed in the light of general purpose of the Act itself’ 14.A bare mechanical interpretation of the words without the concept or purpose will reduce most of the remedial and beneficent legislation to futility. The freedom of the judges to search for ‘the spirit of the Act’ is permissibleseyjaSo} peat aq pmoys uonoes aroun | 2 umn) Ht , Ai i san fi j0 ved fae meso of aestiaad 100.831 “O8H04 d uumjuairou SureTed st uoROTLASUOS aatsodimd skep-e-MON exo ashe Sues e st-syed at Jo uo jou 10 TeMoTe ymsez aanoazse ue Inoge BuiBurag Jo asod.md xp 205 Apo i ajoyis B SB PoTLStIOS aq ISNUE HOHIES 2yJ, OH998 | uonon.nsuos 1opeosq ydos0" pmnoys.9H “Wonontsuo0o yous sures oy3 so syred yuoxaysp oF oiqvordde ew) 4 proaw pmoys auo ‘uorETsBa7 oy} Jo osodand oxy oaaryor oF pjoum & Se pear oq isTiUt oyNAEIS ONT IU ardiounad YL /9) sey omoxreu oy jf pure suOTeIerdzorUT Om are arm sy fguwaur ayeurn{Boy TNR PUe I pe ee Ruareys09un 10) jomostan ou) ‘BpopouL ppd wt soingers Zouo “awl ach | worn gmmpop 01 304 pee “yrou ac 12). oJ pion i : i Jou pu 8 puy.o1 Sresssoou str (ssorestros ‘Ajamnposye os oiv-sprom. dy Sssqun “c { Jo oyms SuNsH aun. ‘aiqureaid sy ‘ormeis auTEs Op JO Rrorstani BuRowuS TOYIO ‘9°F SUS PSOPIM SIE UT SIMIEIS © yo pom Arona aurarexe 03 aBpnf eyo Ainp 248 SPS otqo WAT emos oy'9q PinloYs mop ¥ Aq wonerdudroyur a Sioa op simade otp BExPHE aay pue (iqerom 94 oy pouBissp sr sanaers erany fe) fq ye poaure Ama 2q Aye weS snongiquie 10 upeyd St .jeazod urenb yeoyea sySewr soa yn sumxeur 9q} ae teretdoy] at Aq pash aBensurey oyp yer woIsnpouo oy, “P| ut possosdxo aidioursd St uo, dsaneiedo pur eAnooye 3T ayeur 0} SB ponysuOs os equysnur wro1eyy UorStaoId Sue so aynyzeys y. “AIM so. App NY eo oyNFEIs & SoxeUL Yorym wononnst0o w ysurese A[BuoNS ore sIMOD tL Telqey1om pure oarjoayge opeur 2q 0} eran aD Z 3 $10] 88133] ‘Aq. poytnu ptre pam1ad dq UBS suoistpep YyONs ‘os. op Asu7 JE pure ‘sioqeys ior Oy} JO afor sy 91 YOR sIIBLIEZOL Jo 910 ‘ou stmsse 0} JOU PUL SQ|aIdIaTUT Jo ajo ay1 SuIhsse s[uO Pinoys sa8pnf orp yey} poyedxo ‘sr.4t “opnysucs oL “panzeys oma orp [o1 1ng_poRsyeuen 2q 04 SOREL 2H OF Aorou jou uopusye sy Banoomp Aq. omaersHoT 3h 3° onuaquT ou} UTES JSM LINO, 2.L, S428 [0 “VHNIS 6 quoumnsut oy JO ed Aue ur Sausysisuoouy Pow soe.mnoveut gr ovata uay IwoUMRAsUT soy OM I Boo ING 240 nla[hid pamros, © 20 !,a1h4 Fumiadueg,, 8 40 {ola ArequaH PR. Teoe 0} pauisjai ‘sf ajmu ous, o[ouM © Se oaTaeIS PH Burpee Sq punoy eq.e9, ‘amyesot. amp jo Uortazat syL -saynqess soUNO. Pu wy tT Jo Syms smoraasd oUF ‘FSINOS, soy Ur SOY & SE 9zNIeIS ON OF Supsszoyor Aq poure}oose” Rueop ag, ueo ariweys v ur worsiso id ureLi00 w Jo" Burewoas SLL sojoun BSE peor og ysnu omseIS al y so jo. orpendope’eq 07 81 omap[st#9y “tlkq pepaciur ArAnselqo ssotype oy UOTOWsSHIES, pue ISNIYT [my soars gory Buruwour ommend = oynyeys UE spsop : 10L8% 08 000z uIv unig Jo 2101S UL ‘SA UORb{o0ssy Ssoung fo PUL -pyoa paxeioep.Barog jtouy nosy soynyers Aureus BUH Jo osneo 3x3 sr uisrureuxp SUL suorstacad ue Jo, PT Sup ploudn o} Sujmeour oureusp sit dope ysnir 1700 Pe us) pels jou Sre spiom “JxoIK09 JuOTAYIp UT aE ae eo aon snaney sy prose Rad Pea woo foun ‘sotns avn fa poAteo 91 seodand teyesn ou tog2 Ds 000g wiv! Pue ATe sopm se Sar0s fox Ing ‘me Jo Sat Jou are. “mung fo 211g UL “SA YOHDPOSSY S49UMO Rarond aL OPV JO SOI SUL a ‘etp jo yoslqo Sup. TIBTNY OF 8 + -goefd Hoy) ur paingnégns soja mou paw porooler