LexTHE SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTOR AND OTHERS versus LAX.MI NARAYAN CHOPRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
c ·.,t,,,,...t, 16 , 146 St1PR~ME COURT REPORTS .. [i9~j '.l'HE SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPEC'fOit A~D OTHEHS i·. LAX.MI XARA YAK CHOPRA AND OTHERS <P. B. GAJE~DRAGADRAR, K. SunJJA RAo, 1\1. liIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) - TtleU'flPhy-W ire/,,,.-SIJU.icm-Expmaion "Telegraph ; line", MIJSfling of-If includes electric lines u&ed for ~he purpo&e of wirel<88 tele~raph-Indian Electricit,~ Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), &a.2,3'(2) (b) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ( 13 of 1885), 8.3(1), 3(4)-E/edrir.ity (Supply) Act (Mo/ 1948). c Slatute-Co11atruction--Maxim Contemporanea Expo81IW est optima etforlis•ima in lege-If.npplicab le t~ Acts comparatir<ly modern-Mode nf Interpretation. Severe electrical interference was obser\'ed jn a J>ost and Telegraphs Wireless Station which was traced to the respondent No. 1 's factory where a number of motors were ope~ated for .the purpose .or working _electric 4rills. The Senior Electric Inspector JSSued a nbt1ce to the first res- pondent to show cause as to why an ord.r under s.84(2)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act requiring discontinuance of the operation of the electric motors in the said factorr should not be made. The first respondent challenged the said order by-a \vrit petition contending inte1· alia that there \\•as no "Telep graph Line" in the Posts and Telegraphs Wirekss Station within the meaning of >.34(2}(b) of the Act. · The High Courr held, firstly, that the woi·d. 'line' in the expression 'telegraph JiHc' connotes th~ c.xistencc of a defined channel of communication which has got a·physical existence and that wireless tclegraphy 1s dependent upon transmission through space c,f electric \\'aves and that is not a defined r,hysical channel. Secondly, thr expression "tekgraph line', as used ins. 34(2)(1..>) of the Indian Elcc· tricity Act, has, in the absence of any ncv.· definition in that Act, to be 11:h:cn the sa.me sense as the Legislature had intended in 1885 by the definition of that expression in the ear- lier Act. 1'his reason is based upon the maxim r..ontemporanta r.zpositio £81 optima et fortiMi111a i1l. [,1Je (contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in fa, .. •). The appellants contended that the definirion of "teJc. graph line" in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, was wide enough to take in electric lines usrd for the purpose of • 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT-REPORTS 147 wireless telegraph and the High Court went wrong in invoking the old maxim Mnlemporanea expositio est optima et fortisaima ~n lege. in construing the provisions of a n1odern statute. Held, that the combined reading of the relevant provisions of the Iridian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a "Telegraph line" is comprehensive enough and means a wire or wires used for the purpose of an appliance or apparatus for receiving telegraphic or other com· munications by means of electricity, and it need not be a continuous physical channel from the point of transmission to the point of reception. A wireless transmitter transmits sound as electro-mag- netic waves and the said waves are detected by the aerial and fed into the receiving apparatus by wires. So the wires of the aerial as well as of the apparatus are used for the purpose of the apparatus receiving communications. Thus, the receiving apparatus employs "telegraph lines" within the meaning ofs.3 (4) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Held, further, that the maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes, but not to interpreting Acts which were comparatively modern; The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. In a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legis- lature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, and unless a contrary intention appeared, an interpretation should be given to the words used·. to take in new- facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them . . The maxim "contemporanea exposiiio" could not be invoked in cons truing the word "telegraph line" in the Indian mectricity Act, 19!0. Assheton Smith v. Owen, (1906)1 Ch. 179, Atl.-Orney- General v. Edison Telephone Go. of London, (I 880)6 Q. B. D. 244, In re Regulalion and Control of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.