Reference to other statutes- statute dealing with the same subject matter or forming part of the same system.
Lord Mansfied: “Where there are different statute in pari materia though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together, as one system and as explanatory of each other” It is not necessary that entire subject-matter in the two statutes should be
identical before any provision in one may be held to be in pari materia with provision in the other.
Ex: Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which directs that on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification other than the legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is established by the
accused that the gratification was accepted as a bribe, has been held to be in pari materia with the subject matter dealt with by the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The definition of the expression ‘shall presume’ in the evidence act has been utilized to construe the words it shall be presumed in a S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. (State of Madras v. A Vaidyanath Aiyer, AIR 1997 SC 301.)
Ex: Whether smuggled gold coins constituted ‘goods’ within the meaning of Customs & Excise Act, 1952?
Referred to a whole series of Custom Acts starting in 1833, going on to 1876, 1893, 1932 and 1939 and observed that reading through them it was plain that in the Custom Acts ‘goods’ does not include gold and silver coin.
Statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same person or things, or to the same class of persons or things.
Example: The Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 in so far as it deals with textiles industry has been held to be in pari materia with the Textile Committee Act, 1963.
The rule that related provisions in different Acts but bearing on the same subject have to be read together.
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC.
Explanation 1 to Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides ‘any expenditure incurred or authorized in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party shall not deemed to be-expenditure in connection with the election incurred by the candidate.
In construing this provision, the court read sections 13A and 139(4B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court held that if a political party is not maintain audited and authentic accounts and is not filling return of income, it cannot justifiably plead that it has incurred expenditure under the said section.
Sec. 77(1) does not give protection to the expenditure which comes from unknown or black sources.
Sec. 293A provides that the main income of a political party comes from contributions from companies which are permitted to make these contributions under the conditions laid down in S. 293A of the Companies Act and are required to disclose them in their profit and loss account.
The Schedules to Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act 1936 though not identical, have been held to be in pari materia.
Object of the rule
a It avoids contradiction between a series of statutes dealing with the same subject;
b The application of this rule allows the use of a an earlier statute to throw light on the meaning of a phrase used in a later statute in the same context;
c It permits the raising of a presumption, in the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, that the same meaning attaches to the same words in a later statute as in an earlier statute if the words are used in similar connected in the two statutes; and
d It enables the use of a later statute as parliamentary exposition of the meaning of ambiguous expressions in an earlier statute.
Use of same words in similar connection in a later statute gives rise to a presumption that they are intended to convey the same meaning as in the earlier statute.
When words in an earlier statute have received an authoritative exposition by a superior court, use of same words in similar context in a later Act will be give to a presumption that parliament intends that the same interpretation should also be followed for construction of those words in the later statute.
In Bengal Immunity Co Ltd v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 2174
While dealing with Art. 245(1) and 246 of the constitution which are in pari materia with Sec. 99(1) and 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
Venkarama Aiyer, J. observed that:
It is well-settled rule of construction that where a statute is repealed and re- enacted and words in the repealed statute are reproduced in the new statute, they should be interpreted in the same sense which had been judicially put on them under the Repealed Act because the legislature is presumed to be acquainted with the construction which the courts have put upon the words, when they repeat the same words, they must be taken to have accepted the interpretation put on them by the court as correctly reflecting the legislative mind.
In Desh Raj Gupta v. Industrial Tribunal IV, Lucknow, AIR 1990 SC 2174 A decision interpreting a Central Act has been used for interpreting corresponding provision of a state Act holding that they were in pari materia. It is perfectly legitimatize to refer to repealed acts on the same subject to see
whether the legislature has attributed to a particular phrase a definite force for dealing analogous subjects and even to later acts on the same subject.
When the new legislation, although re-enacting many provisions from earlier statutes, contains a good deal of fresh material and deals with a subject on which social views have drastically changed, it may not proper to rely on the earlier authorities for construing the new legislation.
When there is no ambiguity in the statute, in construing it, reference to any previous legislation or decisions rendered there under may not be permissible. Help from later statutes
It is clearly established that a subsequent legislation on the same subject may be looked to in order to see what is the proper construction to be put upon an earlier Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous. I quite agree that the subsequent legislation, cannot alter that previous legislation, but if there be any ambiguous in the earlier legislation then the subsequent legislation may fix the proper interpretation which is to be put into the earlier.
Subsequent Acts may be resorted to when the legislature states that a later Act should be read with a former. If there is an inconsistency, later Act will prevail.