confiscation of several modes of transport without enabling provisions is deprivation of property rights and tantamouts to violation of fundamental right to hold property.

 

Interpretation of Statutes

1. Literal Rule:

• According to the literal rule, the words of a statute should be given their plain, ordinary meaning. If the statute does not explicitly mention the confiscation of vehicles, then it cannot be inferred.

2. Golden Rule:

• This rule allows a court to depart from the literal meaning to avoid an absurd result. If a strict literal interpretation leads to an unreasonable outcome, the court may look beyond the literal meaning.

3. Mischief Rule:

• The mischief rule seeks to understand the statute’s intent by considering what 'mischief' the Act intended to prevent. If the purpose of the Act implies that vehicles used in the commission of an offense should be confiscated, the court might interpret the statute to include this power, even if not explicitly stated.

4. Purposive Approach:

• The purposive approach looks at the purpose behind the legislation. If the legislative intent was to deter certain offenses by confiscating vehicles used in such crimes, the court might read the statute to effectuate that intent.

Sri Lankan Precedents

Case Analysis:

1.   Forest Ordinance Case:

o   In cases involving the Forest Ordinance, the Sri Lankan courts have dealt with vehicle confiscation. The case of Kariyawasam v. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Kalutara held that unless expressly provided for, vehicles could not be confiscated. The court emphasized the need for clear legislative authority.

2.   Customs Ordinance:

o   Under the Customs Ordinance, vehicles used in smuggling can be confiscated. This is an explicit provision and serves as an example where the statute directly provides for such action.

3.   Narcotic Drugs Ordinance:

o   The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act allows for the confiscation of vehicles used in drug trafficking. Here, explicit language in the Act grants this power to the authorities.

Conclusion

Under the interpretation of statutes, unless the Act explicitly provides for the confiscation of vehicles, such power cannot be assumed. Sri Lankan courts have consistently required clear legislative authority for confiscation actions. Without express words in the statute, the judiciary is generally reluctant to imply such a severe penalty, adhering to the principle that penal statutes should be construed strictly.

In summary, vehicles cannot be confiscated for the commission of an offense without express words in the Act to that effect. This principle is grounded in the rules of statutory interpretation and supported by Sri Lankan judicial precedents.