Inconsistency, ambiguity or conflict between provisions of different statute creates an arena of confusion and opens the door for judicial interpretation on overlapping provisions. Sententia legis or logical interpretation calls for the comparison of the statute with other statutes and with the whole system of law in addition to the consideration of the terms and circumstances in which the statute was passed. In contemplation of the above-mentioned maxim, the intention of legislature acts as a benchmark for clarifying the inconsistency and differentiating between two statutes as a special statute/local statute and general statute. Firstly, the intention of legislature is reflected in its object which is based on historical facts and the need of immediate remedy; secondly, on the language used in its clauses. In the instant research, PMLA, 2002 is a statute which has a commonality of subject-matter with Cr.PC, 1973 and authorities under the act have been arbitrarily using the provisions of Cr.PC in the cases related to money-laundering. Thereof, I would like to analyse certain provisions of both the statues with various principles of interpretation of statutes in the light of judicial pronouncements as to conclude whether PMLA prevails over Cr.PC or not
