25 [31] That these sections have been, and s 276 now is, the source of the power of our courts to impose sentences is apparent from looking at the case of common law crimes. There is no other provision of our law dealing with the power of courts to impose sentences for such crimes. Absent s 276 neither the magistrates’ courts nor the high courts would be entitled to impose sentences on people who commit common law crimes. Counsel for Mr Prins accepted that this is correct. But that poses an insuperable problem for his argument. The language of s 276(1) does not restrict its field of operation to common law crimes. It is an entirely general empowering provision. An offence is defined in s 1 of the Act as ‘an act or omission punishable by law’ and is not confined to common law offences. Counsel was unable to point to anything in the section or elsewhere in the CPA or in any material extraneous to the CPA that would suggest that the power to sentence offenders, conferred by s 276(1), should be confined to common law crimes. However, his argument necessarily requires that we give a restrictive interpretation to the section to confine the scope of its operation to common law crimes. [32] We were referred to the opening words of s 276(1), that make its provisions subject to the other provisions of the CPA or any other law. The first part of this provision is there to make it clear, for example, that s 276(1) does not override the power of a court, in terms of s 297, to postpone the passing of sentence or to discharge the person with a caution and reprimand. The latter subordinates the court’s general sentencing powers to specific legislation dealing with offences. Thus, a court is not entitled to exercise its powers under s 276(1) to sentence to imprisonment a person convicted of the offence of contravening their licence in terms of s 74(1) of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005, in the face of the provisions of s 74(2) of the latter Act, which state that the penalty for