Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Sense of expression once explained (S. 7 IPC)
In the last article, we have studied Section 6 which deals with definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions. In this article, we shall study Section 7 of IPC, which deals with the sense of expression once explained.
When reading the code Chapter II on General Explanation and Chapter IV on general Exceptions are very important. Acceptance of satisfactory terminology is of the first importance for securing workable rules. The law must have the same meaning for all persons.
The definitions and every other provision of the Code including illustration must be read subject to the exceptions provided for in the Chapter of the Code entitled “General Exceptions”. The exceptions, though not specified in the definition of the offence in question, shall be deemed to be incorporated therein; in other words, it shall have effect as if it had been so specified.
Section 7 of IPC:
S.7: Sense of expression once explained:
Every expression which is explained in any part of this Code is used in every part of this Code in conformity with the explanation.
Section 7 is based on two Latin maxims “inclusio unius est exclusio alterus” which means the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another and “expressio unius est exclusio alterus” which means the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The law must have the same meaning for all persons. All Acts contain an interpretation clause which defines and explains the leading terms used in the Act to avoid any mistake of meaning. It is necessary that a word which occurs more than once in the same Act must be given the same meaning throughout the Act. It means a particular expression shall have a particular meaning everywhere is to say that it shall have no other meaning anywhere.
Example: Section 52 of the IPC explains the term “Good faith” as “Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention”. The expression “Good Faith” is used in Section 79 in conformity with this explanation.
In Rameshwar Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Nag 177 case, the Court observed that the first part of Section 7 affirms the well-settled principle of construction of statute that the word which occurs more than once in the same Act must be given the same meaning throughout the Act unless some definition in the Actor the context shows that the Legislature used the word in a different sense.
In State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63 case, the question was whether the respondent who caused injury to the private parts of a female child of seven and half months is guilty under Section 354 of the Penal Code of the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. The Court held that Section 10 of the IPC explains that “woman” denotes a female human being, of any age. The expression “woman” is used in Section 354 in conformity with this explanation.
In Naresh Kumar Madan v. State of MP, AIR 2008 SC 385 case, the contention of Appellant had been that ‘public servant’ having been defined in Section 81 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the same does not satisfy the requirements of the definition as contained in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that different statutes may use the same term for different purposes. A term or a word may be interpreted in the statute itself for fulfilling the purport and object mentioned therein whereas in another statute it may be defined differently. The Court held that interpretation of a term in one statute, however, cannot be done with reference to its definition contained in another and decided that it may be necessary to construe the definition of the term ‘public servant’ occurring in the relevant statutes.
In Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 case, the Court was deciding the contextual background of the words `wilful default’ and rules of interpretation. In this case, the Court observed that the explanation to a statutory provision in Act has the following objects:
- To explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself;
- Where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve,
- To provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful;
- An Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment; and
- It cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person, under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.
Conclusion:
The law must have the same meaning for all persons. All Acts contain an interpretation clause that defines and explains the leading terms used in the Act to avoid any mistake of meaning. Section 7 affirms the well-settled principle of construction of the statute that the word which occurs more than once in the same Act must be given the same meaning throughout the Act unless some definition in the Actor the context shows that the Legislature used the word in a different sense.