What does the principle of "reading the statute as a whole" imply in the interpretation of statutes? Explain with the help of an example.

It is the elementary principle that construction of a statute is to be made of all its parts taken together and not of one part only. The deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses, and the words of each clause should be so interpreted as to bring them into harmony with other provisions if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible. And the same approach would apply with equal force with regard to Acts and Rules passed by the legislature. One of the safest guides to the construction of sweeping general words is to examine other words of like import in the same enactment or instrument to see what limitations must be imposed on them. If we find that a number of such expressions have to be subjected to limitations and qualifications and that such limitations and qualifications are of the same nature, that circumstance forms a strong argument for subjecting the expression in dispute to a similar limitation and qualification. Example: If one section of an Act requires 'notice' should be given, then a verbal notice would generally be sufficient. But, if another section provides that 'notice' should be 'served' on the person or 'left' with him, or in a particular manner or place, then it would obviously indicate that a written notice was intended.