Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and would thus take within its sweep the interim compensation directed to be paid under sub-section (1) of said Section 143-A.

14. The remedy for failure to pay interim compensation as directed by the court is thus provided for by the legislature. The method and modality of recovery of interim wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc compensation is clearly delineated by the legislature. It is well-known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. While relying on the decision of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372] , a Bench of three Judges of this Court made the following observations in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358] . (AIR p. 361, paras 7-8) "7. In Nazir Ahmad case [Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372] the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] , Ch D at p. 431 to a court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making a record under Section 164 and, therefore, held that the Magistrate could not give oral evidence of the confession made to him which he had purported to record under Section 164 of the Code. It was said that otherwise all the precautions and safeguards laid down in Sections 164 and 364, both of which had to be read together, would become of such trifling value as to be almost idle and that 'it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves'.

8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor [Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A Magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course wp4128-2021 & connected-Final.doc of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of Section 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The section, therefore, by conferring on Magistrates the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a Magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him.