As observed by the Appellate Division, these interpretative rules underscore the "court's responsibility `to give harmonizing construction to legislation and to read it so as to give effect to all of its provisions and to the legislators will.'" Dixon, 220 N.J. Super. at 557 (quoting State v. Channel HomeCenters, 199 N.J. Super. 483, 489 (App.Div.), certif. den., 93 N.J. 253 (1985)).

The words of a statute must be given their common-sense meaning in the context of the entire statute, which should be afforded a “harmonizing construction and read so as to give effect to all of its provisions and to the legislative will.” State v. Channel Home Ctrs., 199 N.J.Super. 483, 489, 489 A.2d 1225 (App.Div.1985). Statutes must, if reasonably possible, be accorded a construction that is sensible and consonant with reason and good discretion, rather than one that leads to absurd consequences.

State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504, 510, 527 A.2d 388 (1987); see also City of Newark v. County of Essex, 160 N.J.Super. 105, 113, 388 A.2d 1311 (App.Div.1978), (in construing a statute, the court must consider the legislative purpose) aff'd, 80 N.J. 143, 402 A.2d 916 (1979); Headen v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 212 N.J. 437, 448, 55 A.3d 65 (2013).State v. Channel Home Ctrs., 199 N.J.Super. 483, 489, 489 A.2d 1225 (App.Div.1985); see also Horwitz v. Reichenstein, 15 N.J. 6, 8, 103 A.2d 881 (1954) (where a statute is ambiguous, it is the duty of the judiciary to choose that construction which will carry out the legislative intent of the statute as a whole); Beard v. Aldrich, 106 N.J.L. 266, 149 A. 57 (Sup.Ct.1930) (courts must adopt that construction of a statute which reconciles and gives reasonable meaning to all its provisions); Cressey v. Campus Chefs, Div. of CVI Serv., Inc., 204 N.J.Super. 337, 342–43, 498 A.2d 1274 (App.Div.1985) (the judiciary is obligated “to respect the legislative intention by interpreting the statute in a common-sense manner which advances the legislative purpose.”) N.J.S.A. 52:27D–329.2(a) unambiguously provides that “a municipality may not spend or commit to spend any affordable housing development fees ... without first obtaining [COAH's] approval of the expenditure.”

The words of a statute must be given their common-sense meaning in the context of the entire statute, which should be afforded a "harmonizing construction and read so as to give effect to all of its provisions and to the legislative will." State v. Channel Home Ctrs., 199 N.J. Super. 483, 489 (App. Div. 1985). Statutes must, if reasonably possible, be accorded a construction that is sensible and consonant with reason and good discretion, rather than one that leads to absurd consequences.

Statutes “must give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and what consequences may follow violation of the law.” State v. Channel Home Ctrs., 199 N.J.Super. 483, 489, 489 A. 2d 1225 (App.Div.1985). “It is, therefore, inappropriate to supply missing connections in criminal statutes that persons of ordinary intelligence would not discover.”

Reconciliation of conflicting legislative enactments requires judicial consideration of legislative intent in an effort to construe the provisions in such a manner that will give effect to both provisions and to the legislative will. State v. Channel Home Ctrs.,199 N.J.Super. 483, 489, 489 A.2d 1225 (App.Div. 1985); see also Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46, at 103 (5th ed. 1992). The purpose of the non-disclosure provisions of the Juvenile Code is to foster rehabilitation of the juvenile.

We should give a harmonizing construction to legislation and read it so as to give effect to all of its provisions and to the legislative will. State v. Channel Home Ctrs., 199 N.J. Super. 483, 489 (App.Div. 1985). See Hillsdale P.B.A. Local 207 v. Borough of Hillsdale, 263 N.J. Super. 163, 185 n. 13 (App.Div. 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 137 N.J. 71 (1994); see also Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.05, at 103 (5th ed. 1992).

The court cannot supply, however every legislative omission or ignore statutory changes made deliberately by the Legislature. State v. Channel Home Centers, 199 N.J. Super. 483, 489 A.2d 1225 (App.Div. 1985). Statutes in pari materia must all be viewed together in ascertaining legislative intent.

However, this principle is subject to another well-established principle that it is a court's responsibility "to give harmonizing construction to legislation and to read it so as to give effect to all of its provisions and to the legislators will." State v. Channel Home Centers, 199 N.J. Super. 483, 489 (App.Div. 1985), certif. den., 93 N.J. 253.

N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. State v. Channel Home Centers, 199 N.J. Super. 483 (App.Div. 1985). Since the period of suspension ended on August 31, 1984, the defendant cannot be found guilty of a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 for operation of his motor vehicle on November 5, 1985.