Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute penalises 'any person who sells liquor, wine, beer or other intoxicating drinks' without a licence. A shopkeeper is prosecuted for selling a non-alcoholic cough syrup that contains a small amount of alcohol. Applying the rule of ejusdem generis, what is the correct position?

The shopkeeper is not liable on this ground. Under ejusdem generis, general words after a list of specific items are confined to the same class. Since liquor, wine and beer are beverages, 'other intoxicating drinks' does not extend to a cough syrup containing a little alcohol.

  1. AThe shopkeeper is liable, because the words 'other intoxicating drinks' must be read in the widest possible sense
  2. BThe shopkeeper is not liable merely on this ground, because the general words take colour from the specific words and cover only items of the same class, namely intoxicating beveragesCorrect
  3. CThe shopkeeper is liable, because specific words are always ignored when general words follow them
  4. DThe shopkeeper is not liable, because penal statutes can never be applied to a trader

Explanation

Ejusdem generis means that general words following specific words are limited to things of the same kind (class). Liquor, wine and beer are intoxicating beverages, so 'other intoxicating drinks' covers only that class. A medicinal syrup is not in that class. Option A ignores the rule and widens the meaning.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Interpretation of Statutes questions