Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

46. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and the conclusion recorded by us in the preceding paragraphs, it is not permissible or possible to read the words "only in cases where penalty is not paid" in the provision relating to forfeiture as that would amount to reframing the Rules which is not permissible or possible as the Court has no power to 37 AFR WP No.20831/2018 & others legislate and as it is settled law that words can be read into a statute only in cases of obvious drafting errors, that to, only after abundantly making sure about the intend and purpose of the statute or the provision in question and that the obvious drafting error is leading to failure to give effect to the purpose of the provision that the Parliament would have made or was intending to make, had the drafting error not occurred. A departure from the Rule of literal construction by adding or reading words into the statute can only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances where not doing so would deprive the provision of the Rules, as it exists, of all meaning or render certain provisions redundant and otios. Reading of the words "into a statute" can be done by adopting the mischief rule or purposive construction only when there is no doubt about the purpose and object which the law makers intended to achieve. The law in this regard has been elaborately discussed in Chapter-2 of the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, 14th Edition, which fully applies to the present case. None of the above factors are present in the present case.