It is a sound principle of construction that, meaning of words and expressions used in an Act, must take their color from the context in which they appear. Neither the meaning, nor the definition of a term in one statute, affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute, more so, if the two Acts in which the same word is used, are not cognate Acts and the sense in which a term has been understood in several statutes, does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which it should be under stood generally.We cannot discern a statute's meaning by examining its text alone. The majority correctly acknowledges that we must examine the statutory text in its context, which includes prior versions of the same statute.Words have different shades of meaning and must take its color from the context in which itis used having regard to the purpose and object of the legislation, and the Court must necessarily keep in view the mischief which the legislature seeks to remedy. Interpretation of a statute, contextual or otherwise must further and not frustrate the object of the statute.The question of what a word means in its context within the Act is a question of legal interpretation and, therefore, one of law. The choice of the proper rule of construction to be applied to ascertain the meaning is again a matter of law.
In S. Gopal Reddy vs.State of Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court observed :
"It is a well-known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The courts must look to the object that the statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary."
Contextual reading is a well-known proposition of interpretation of statute. The clauses of a statute should be construed with reference to the context vis-à-vis the other provisions so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute relating to the subject-matter. The rule of 'ex visceribus actus' should be resorted to in a situation of this nature.
The duty of the Court in interpreting or construing a provision is to read the section, and understand its meaning in the context. Interpretation of a provision or statute is not a mere exercise in semantics but an attempt to find out the meaning of the legislation from the words used, understand the context and the purpose of the expressions used and then to construct the expressions sensibly.
S.MOHAN Lalvs.R. KONDIAH 1979 AIR 1132; 1979 SCR (3) 12
PGE V. Bureau Of Labor And Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993); Kreiger V. Just, 319 Or 328, 336, 876 P2d 754 (1994).
 VATTICHERUKURU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AND Orsvs.NORI VEKATRAMA DEEKSHITHULU AND ORS., 1991 SCR (2) 531; 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 228
 United States V. Wurzbach,  280 US 396 (@)399;Criminal Law: Smith & Hogan, 5th Edn. P. 70,
S. Gopal Reddy Vs.State Of Andhra Pradesh Reported In (1996) 4 SCC 596
 DINESHCHANDRA JAMNADAS Gandhivs.STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR,. 1989 AIR 1011; 1989 SCR (1) 138
 AJOY KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. ETC.Vs.UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC., 1984 AIR 1130; 1984 SCR (3) 252