Interpretation of Statute

Submitted to:
MS. Erum
Department School of Law

Submitted by:
FARAZ HUSSAIN SHEIKH
R.NO: H16132022
Class: B.A LLB
9th Semester

Department School of Law

University of Karachi
2021
CITATION OF CASE LAW

1
 1981 S C M R 267
Present : Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
MEHAR KHAN-Petitioner
Versus
YAQUB KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
INTRODUCTION:
It is here by explained that the above case law is criminal appeal filed by petitioner against bail
grant of respondent by High Court Lahore on the wrong interpretation of sections define in
Criminal procedure code. And we will discuss here the main facts, issues, Explained sections
and the judgment of the case 1982-SCMR-267.1

Facts of the case

Petition was filed by mehar khan against the bail granted by high court Lahore. Where yaqub
khan respondent charged against murder of Muhammad iqbal and arrested along with three
other persons. Yaqub khan applied for bail in court of additional session judge, who got
rejected. Respondent file application to high court for bail not on merit but applied on a
question of law. He submitted that yaqub khan was kept in judicial custody till the filling the
bail application. Respondent kept 2 point before high court neither a complete or incomplete
report (challan) submitted to magistrate. Magistrate cannot take cognizance under section of
criminal procedure court and that he is not competent to pass an order of remand. since no
remand order was passed by competent court, so the detention was illegal, therefore, he entitled
to grant bail. Complainant challenge that the high court is not on the correct interpretation of
relevant provision. Complainant further added that the high court is not on the correct
interpretation, in view of fact that the criminal procedure has been recently amended.as a result
learned high court has erred in granting bail to the respondent on ground that magistrate seized
case in question for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, and is not empowered to pass an
order of remand. In the result bail order set aside by supreme court.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

petition by Mehar Khan is directed against the Order dated 26th May, 1979, of a learned Single
Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby bail was granted to Yaqub Khan, respondent. .Yaqub
Khan, respondent, is accused, along with three others namely Ghafoor Khan, Amir Abdullah
and Esab Khan, of an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder of Muhammad
lqbal. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Mehar Khan (petitioner herein) Yaqub Khan
applied for bail to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who rejected his
application. 2The learned counsel did not press the bail application on merits but submit ted
before the High Court, at the very outset that he had applied for bail only on a question of law.
He submitted that Yaqub Khan, respondent, was arrested on 12-12-1978. Thereafter, till the

1
1982 – SCMR-267
2
Section 302/34 of Pakistan Penal Code

2
filing of the bail application on 1-3-1979, the learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial
custody by various orders under section 344, Cr. P. C., passed from time to time.3

LEGAL RULES APPLIED IN THE CASE

I. Yaqub Khan, respondent of an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder
of Muhammad lqbal. Yaqub Khan then moved the Lahore High Court for bail vide Cr.
Misc. No. 751/B/1979. The learned counsel did not press the bail application on merits
but submit ted before the High Court, at the very outset that he had applied for bail only
on a question of law.
II. His first contention was that since neither a complete nor an incomplete Report under
section 173, Cr. P. C. (i.e., challan) had been submitted before the learned Magistrate,
he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the case under' subsection (1) of section
190, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of sub section (3) of the said section, and as such he was
not competent to pass an order of remand under section 344 (1), Cr. P. C.
III. The second contention raised by the learned counsel was that since the case, in question,
was triable exclusively by the Court of Session, therefore, in view of the language of
section 344, Cr. P. C. only that Court. Thereafter, till the filing of the bail application
on 1-3-1979, the learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody by various orders
under section 344, Cr. P. C., passed from time to time.
IV. The counsel for Yaqub Khan urged two points before the High Court. His first
contention was that since neither a complete nor an incomplete Report under section
173, Cr. P. C. (i.e., challan) had been submitted before the learned Magistrate, he cannot
be said to have taken cognizance of the case under' subsection (1) of section 190, Cr. P.
C. for the purpose of sub section (3) of the said section, and as such he was not
competent to pass an order of remand under section 344 (1), Cr. P. C.
V. If the offence is one triable by a Magistrate then in case the takes cognizance of a case
under clause (a) or (c) he would proceed to make a preliminary enquire into the matter,
and if a prima facie case is made out, he could try the case. If he takes cognizance on a
Police report under clause (b) then, if the investigation has been completed and he does
not adjourn the case under section 344, Cr. P. C., he can proceed to try it. If, however,
the case was one triable exclusively by a Court of Session then prior to the Law Reforms
Ordinance, 1972 he would start commitment proceedings' under Chapter XVIII of the
Cr. P. C. and then, if there was sufficient evidence for that purpose, he would commit
the case to the Court of Session under subsection (3) of section 190, Cr. P. C.
VI. The learned counsel for Mehar Khan, complainant/petitioner has challenged the
aforementioned order, contending that the conclusion arrived at by the learned High
Court is not based upon correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of law i.e.
subsections (1) and (3) of section 190, Cr. P. C., and section 344, Cr. P. C. He submitted
further that the Magistrate could pass an order of remand under section 344, Cr. P. C.
even without taking cognizance of a case.
VII. The question involved in the resent petition relates mainly to the correct interpretation
of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C.

3
Section 344 173 190 Cr.P.C

3
VIII. Difficulty has arisen in the interpretation of S. 344(1); Cr. P. C. because, unfortunately,
it has not been suitably amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance and its wording
remains the same as before the omission of Chapter XVIII. To understand this, the
wording of that section has to be studied with care.
IX. As a result of the above interpretation of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C. we hold that the
learned High Court Judge has erred in granting bail to the respondent.

VERDICT OF THE COURT

The question involved in the resent petition relates mainly to the correct interpretation of
section 344 (1), Cr. P. C. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is of considerable
importance in view of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code has been recently amended.
If the offence is one triable by a Magistrate then in case the takes cognizance of a case under
clause (a) or (c) he would proceed to make a preliminary enquire into the matter, and if a prima
facie case is made out, he could try the case. If he takes cognizance on a Police report under
clause (b) then, if the investigation has been completed and he does not adjourn the case under
section 344, Cr. P. C., he can proceed to try it. We feel that the above-noted Rule of
interpretation is, applicable with full force to the present case and while interpreting the
provision of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C., the earlier state of the law has to be kept in mind and
the wording of the related provisions. It follows, therefore, that a Magistrate who has taken
cognizance of a case under section 190 (1), Cr. P. C. and is applying his mind for the before
mentioned purpose, is also empowered under the said section, to postpone the commencement
of or adjourn the said 'inquiry' and naturally therefore, he would have the power to remand the
accused to judicial custody from time to time till he finally 'sends' the case for trial to the Court
of Session. As a result of the above interpretation of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C. we hold that the
learned High Court Judge has erred in granting bail to the respondent on the above mentioned
ground. In view of the above discussion we convert the petition into an appeal, accept the same
and set aside the order of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court vide the impugned
Order.

APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF

STATUTES
Golden Rule of Interpretation' by Maxwell, is applied in this case law. 4The golden rule was
defined by Lord Wensleydale in the Grey v Pearson case (1857) as: “The grammatical and
ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or
some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical
and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency,
but no farther." So,5 The Golden Rule is a modification of The Literal Rule to be used to avoid
an absurd outcome.

4
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/golden-rule-
interpretation/#:~:text=Editor's%20Note%3A%20The%20golden%20rule,meaning%2C%20irrespective%20of%
20the%20consequences.
5
Grey Vs Pearson Case 1857

4
The main advantage of The Golden Rule is that drafting errors in statutes can be corrected
immediately. This is seen in the R v Allen (1872) case where the loopholes were closed, the
decision was in line with parliament’s intentions and it gave a more just outcome.6

CONCLUSION:
It is here by explained in this case that Yaqub khan (respondent) file application for appeal in
front of magistrate against the charges of murder which was dismissed by magistrate court after
that Yaqub khan went to high court for appeal on the basis of question of law. He submitted
that yaqub khan was kept in judicial custody till the filling the bail application. Respondent
kept 2 point before high court neither a complete or incomplete report (challan) submitted to
magistrate. Magistrate cannot take cognizance under section of criminal procedure court and
that he is not competent to pass an order of remand. since no remand order was passed by
competent court, so the detention was illegal, therefore, he entitled to grant bail. In the result
of which respondent got bail. After that application/petitioner of the case file appeal in supreme
court and mentions ground that the honorable high court have made some mistake in
considering the wrong interpretation of sections of Cr.P.C. after some discussion about
interpretation of sections the learned supreme court accepted the appeal and set aside the order
of high court of bail grant and announce vide to the impugned order.

6
R V allen Case 1872

5
 1981 SCMR 267
MAHAR KHAN PETITIONER
VS
YAQUB KHAN AND OTHER RESPONDENT

FACTS
1. In this case the petitioner Mehar Khan directed against the Order of learned Single
Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby bail was granted to respondent Yaqub Khan.
2. The respondent Yaqub Khan with three other partners committed a crime under section
302/34 of P.P.C for the murder of Muhammad lqbal.
3. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Mehar Khan.
4. Yaqub Khan applied for bail to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who
rejected his application then he moved to the Lahore High Court for bail.
5. The learned Council of Respondent had not submitted bail application on merit before
High Court; he had applied for bail only on a question of law. He submitted that
respondent was arrested and was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate within 24 hours,
who remanded him to Police custody. Thereafter, till the filing of the bail application,
the learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody by various orders under
section 344, Cr. P. C., passed from time to time.
6. The Learned counsel for Yaqub Khan praised two points before the High Court. His
first contention was that since neither a complete nor an incomplete Report under
section 1737, Cr. P. C. (i.e., challan) had been submitted before the learned Magistrate,
he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the case under' subsection (1) of section
190, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of sub section (3) of the said section, and as such he was
not competent to pass an order of remand under section 344 (1), Cr. P. C.

7. He submitted further that since no order of remand under section 344, Cr. P. C. had
been passed by a Court competent to try the case (i.e. a Court of Session)
8. The question involved in the resent petition relates mainly to the correct interpretation
of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is of
considerable importance in view of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. In the changed circumstances, after the commitment prose have been dispensed with
by the Law Reforms Ordinance, this inquiring that the relevant material and application
of mind thereto by a Magistrate, determine the nature of offence i.e. to determine as to
whether or not the case is one triable, exclusively by the Court of Session.

6
 10. As a result of interpretation of section 344 (1), Cr. P. C. that the learned High Court
Judge has lapse in granting bail to the respondent on the ground that the Magistrate
seized of the case in question for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under subsection
(3) of section 190, Cr. P. C, is not empowered to pass an order of remand under section
344(1), Cr. P. C.
11. In view of the above facts the petition converted into an appeal; accept the same and
set aside the order of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court vide the
impugned Order.
12. Prior to the conclusion of this order, we may mention that after the decision of the High
Court on the application for bail, a challan has now been accepted and therefore it
cannot be claimed that the Magistrate has properly dealt with the matter. He is not under
arrest and has not taken the matter "seriously". The meaning of the word used in section
(3) of section 190 is CR PC, but it can be observed that in a case which is neither
complete nor an incomplete challan (including the Police Rules, 1934) Is considered
under Rules 25'26), is presented before the Magistrate, it cannot be assumed that under
section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, The manner in which it will not be considered that it has
taken notice of a matter under clause (a) of section 190 (1), Cr. P.C when no private
complaint has been lodged with it. The result will be that in such cases the magistrates
will not have the power to take the accused into custody under section 344 (1) of the
Criminal Code of Conduct.

ISSUES
• The issues discussed in this case were whether the bail granted to respondent was illegal
or legal method?
• Or whether the Magistrate has power to remand an accused person to custody under
section 344 of Cr.P.C?
• And the other issues was that whether the interpretation of section 344(1) of Cr.P.C,
word ‘Inquiry’ as used in this section has proper mode of interpretation or discovering
true intention of Legislature?

RULES APPLIED IN THE CASE

• Section 3028 read with 349 of PPC
• Section 19010 of Cr.P.C
• Section 34411 of Cr.P.C

RULE OF INTERPRETATION
In the said case the Primary rule of interpretation is used. The golden rule of interpretation
has passed down the application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal

8
Section 302 of the Code governs the punishment for murder

7
and the golden rules as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament’s intent. Legislative
intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises,
law review articles and corresponding statutes.
Golden Rule is compromise between the plain meaning (or literal) rule and the mischief rule.
Like the plain meaning rule, it gives the words of a statute their plain, ordinary meaning.
However, when this may lead to an irrational result that is unlikely to be legislature’s
intention, the judge can depart from this meaning. In the case of homographs, where a word
can have more than one meaning, the judge can choose the preferred meaning. If the word
only has one meaning, and applying this meaning would lead to a bad decision, the judge can
apply a completely different meaning12.
It is very useful rule in the construction of statute as it allows to adhere to the ordinary
meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance
with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any
manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case it allows the language to be varied or
modified so as to avoid such inconvenience.
Thus, the Golden Rule implies that if a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to an
absurd result then the meaning of the words should be so construed so as to lead the
avoidance of such absurdity. A further corollary to this rule is that in case there are multiple
constructions to effect the Golden rule the one which favours the assessee should always be
taken. This rule is also known as the rule of Reasonable Construction.

CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this assignment is to interpretation which rule has been applied in above
mentioned case and what happened in this case. Where Mr Mehar Khan (petitioner) had
lodged the FIR of murder of Muhammad Iqbal against Yaqub Khan and others where the
Yaqub Khan become free through bail. The Learned Counsel of accused granted bail by High
Court under question of law. Whereas the learned counsel of Mehar Khan has challenged that
the conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court is not based upon correct interpretation of
the relevant provisions of law. The cause for this apparent conflict or confusion is, however,
not difficult to spot. The Supreme Court has interpretate the statute through the Golden Rule
of Interpretation and set aside the order of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court.

12
Maxwell Book Interpretation of Statute Volume 3