State of J&K vs. Lakhwinder Kumar & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2013 in
SLP (Crl.) No. 5910 of 2012 [Decided on 25.04.2013]
The
Court observed:
“It is well settled that legislature has
authority to define a word even artificially and while doing so, it may either
be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same.
When the legislature uses the expression
“means” in the definition clause, the definition is prima facie restrictive and
exhaustive. However, use of the expression “includes” in the definition clause
makes it extensive.”
On
the facts of the case, the Court observed:
“Many a times, as in the present case, the
legislature has used the term “means” and “includes” both and, hence,
definition of the expression “active duty” is presumed to be exhaustive.
In our opinion, the use of the expression
“includes” enlarges the meaning of the word “active duty” and, therefore, it
shall not only mean the duty specified in the section but those duty also as
declared by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. The notification so
issued by the Central Government states that “duty of every person” of the
Force “serving in the State” of Jammu and Kashmir “with effect from the 1st of
July, 2007 to 30th of June, 2010 as active duty”. The notification
does not make any reference to the nature of duty, but lays emphasis at the
place where the members of the Force are serving, to come within the definition
of ‘active duty’. In view of the aforesaid, there is no escape from the
conclusion that the accused persons were on active duty at the time of
commission of the offence.”