MADRAS CRICKET CLUB Vs. M SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein number 16, the 1st petitioner being a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the others being the office bearers thereof. The petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C. No. 762 of 2002 wherein the respondent herein has preferred a complaint informing that as a member of the 1st accused club he was entitled to have true copies of the minutes of the general meetings thereof held from time to time that he had sought from the 1st accused by his letter dated 19.06.2002, a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Minutes of the General Meetings for appointment of captains of cricket and tennis teams respectively and the circular sent for these appointment for the year 2001-02 and that as the petitioners herein had failed to furnish the same in keeping with Section 196(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 which required the same to be furnished within a period of 7 days, an offence stood committed by the petitioners which entails a fine of Rs. 5000/- in respect of each offence under Section 196(3).

(2.) Section 196(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that if any copy required by a member which he may duly seek under Section 196(2) is not furnished within the time specified, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 5000/- in respect of each offence. It is on the strength of the provisions of Section 196 of the Companies Act, 1956 that the respondent has filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egmore, Chennai.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners informs that the 1st petitioner club had time and again requested the respondent/complainant to inspect the records in the office premises and that in any event the complainant had obtained copies of the papers required by him through the Company Law Board. In such circumstances, the offence, even if made out, would be so trivial that no reasonable person would complain of it. Though the learned Senior counsel raises such submission touching upon Section 95 of the IPC which provides that "nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm", the main thrust of the learned Senior Counsel is under Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956. To appreciate such contention, the relevant section may be reproduced: