ordinarily mandatory but it is sometimes not so interpreted if the context or the intention otherwise demands”, and points out SUBBARAO, J.: “When a statute uses the word ‘shall’ , prima facie it is mandatory, but the court may ascertain the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statue”, If different provisions are connected with the same word ‘shall’, and if with respect to some of them the intention of the Legislature is clear that the work ‘shall’ in relation to them must be given an obligatory or a directory meaning, it may indicate that with respect to other provisions also, the same construction should be placed. If the word ‘shall’ has been substituted for the word ‘may’ by an amendment, it will be a very strong indication that use of ‘shall’ makes the provision imperative. Similar will be the position when the Bill as introduced used the word ‘may’ and the Parliament substituted the word ‘shall’ in its place while passing the Act. The use of word ‘may’ at one place and ‘shall’ at another place in the same section may strengthen the inference that these words have been used in their primary sense and that ‘shall’ should be construed as mandatory. When the expressions ‘shall’ and ‘may’ are defined in the Act (for example ‘shall presume’ and ‘may presume’ in section 4 of the Evidence Act) the expressions have to be given the meaning as defined.
