Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
The technology module of this paper asks whether the law can absorb fax, e-mail and the internet without being rewritten. This is the decision that says it can, and it does so by a method of statutory interpretation a student can reuse on any provision drafted before the device existed.
Facts
Section 138 requires that a notice in writing be given to the drawer of a dishonoured cheque. The notice in this case was transmitted by fax, and the objection was that this did not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Held
A notice envisaged by s. 138 can be sent by fax. Nowhere does the section say that such a notice must be sent by registered post, or that it should be despatched through a messenger. A notice transmitted by fax is compliance with the legal requirement.
Reasoning
Step one — read what the section does not say. The provision prescribes writing; it does not prescribe a mode of transmission. A court that added one would be legislating.
Step two — date the legislative knowledge. The chapter containing ss. 138 to 142 was inserted by amending legislation of 1988. Technological advances such as fax, the internet and e-mail were already in swift progress before the Bill was discussed in Parliament, so the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices already in vogue and of those in store for the future.
Step three — reject an interpretation that freezes the statute. If the words giving notice in writing were read as restricted to the customary mode of sending notice through the postal service or by personal delivery, the interpretative process would fail to cope with the change of time.
Step four — extend the reasoning. The same logic carries the requirement of a written notice to e-mail, which can be sent instantaneously and whose delivery is acknowledged by a delivery report — a method more safe, accurate, economical and less time-consuming than registered post with acknowledgement due.
Exam use
It opens: Discuss the impact of information technology on the administration of justice — it is the first of the three technology cases and the one about service and notice.
Group it with its companions. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai allows evidence, including in criminal matters, to be recorded by video conferencing; Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka holds that an accused need not in every case be physically present to answer questions in his examination. Together they make the point that existing procedural language is capacious enough for new technology.
Use the method, not just the result. The three steps — the statute prescribes the substance and not the medium; the legislature is presumed aware of available technology; an interpretation that cannot cope with the change of time is to be rejected — will answer a question about electronic service, electronic contracts or e-filing even where no case is on the point.
Keep it apart from proof of electronic records. Sending a notice electronically is one question; proving an electronic record in court is another, governed by the certificate regime of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and now by the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
It does not decide any question about the proof of despatch or receipt of the fax, which remains a matter of evidence in the particular case; nor does it dispense with any of the other conditions of s. 138.