What is the test for judicial interpretation of a statute?

'* * * Where the meaning of the statute is plain there is no room or justification for judicial interpretation, and the only function of the court is the application of the enactment to the facts at bar * * *' (Riley v. Robbins, 1 Cal.2d 285, 287-288, 34 P.2d 715, 716). The interpretation to a statute as a whole must be reasonable and when opportunity arises, made compatible with common sense and the dictates of justice. It is the duty of courts not to be ingenious to find ambiguity in the statutes because of extraneous matters, but to interpret them in such a manner that they may be free of ambiguity, and to give, if possible, a construction which not only renders them constitutional, but which is consistent with sound common sense and wise policy, with a view to promoting [189 Cal.App.2d 250] justice. Estate of Todd, 17 Cal.2d 270, 275, 109 P.2d 913.