536 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
P.120.
“I am wholly unable to adopt the view that where a statute is expressly said to Codify the law, you are at liberty to go outside the Code, so created, because before the existence of that code another law prevailed.”
Lord Harschell observed:
P. 144
“The proper cause is in the first instance to examine the language of the Statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by the considerations derived from the previous state of the law and not to start with enquiring how the law previously stood and then assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered, to see if the words will bear an interpretation in conformity with this view.”
The object of codification of a particular branch of the law is that, on any point specifically dealt with by it, such law should be sought for in the codified enactment, and is ascertained by interpreting the language used.
Construction of a Consolidating Act : The rule of Construction in regard to a Consolidating Act is laid down in (1894) 2 Ch. 557.
Shitty J. (P. 561) observed after referring to the rule of construction laid down in Bank of England vs. Vagliano in regard to a codifying Act. in Lord Halsbury
“. . . . . . . . . .But I have here to deal, not with an Act of Parliament codifying the law, but with an Act to amend and to consolidate the law and therefore it is I say these observations (of lord Halsbury) do not apply and I think it is legitimate in the interpretation of the section in this amending and consolidating Act to refer to the previous state of the law for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the legislature.”
- The object of consolidation with or without amendment is merely to assemble together the scattered parts of the Existing law. It is merely a re-enactment of the old law. It is not a new enactment of the law. Prima facie the same effect ought to be given to its provisions as was given to those of the Acts for which it was substituted.