Statutory construction limits "books and papers" to accounting type records, excluding nomination papers and negating secretary's criminal liability.

The article examines whether "books of account and other books and papers" in s.209(4)(a) encompass nomination papers, applying statutory construction doctrines (noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) and legislative history to restrict the phrase to documents of the same character as accounting and production records; it finds nomination papers are not of that character. It also assesses corporate governance facts showing the secretary acted under the president's directive, concluding criminal liability cannot attach where refusal to permit inspection originated from authorised corporate orders. The consequence addressed is quashing of the conviction and acquittal of the secretary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the secretary under Section 209(4)(a) read with Sections 209(5) and 209(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 for refusing inspection of nomination papers was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court examined the scope of the expression "books of account and other books and papers" in Section 209(4)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, applying principles of statutory construction including noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis to determine whether nomination papers fall within "other books and papers." The legislative history and the amendment (Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965) were considered, including the Joint Select Committee's explanation that the phrase was intended to cover documents akin to books of account and records relating to utilisation of material, labour or cost particulars for production/processing/manufacturing/mining. The Court also analysed the corporate governance provisions (articles of association) that required the secretary to act under the orders of the president, and the factual chronology showing that the secretary had placed the complainant's requests before the president who declined inspection and directed custody measures. The Court concluded that (a) the statutory phrase must be read restrictively to refer to books and papers of the same kind as books of account, (b) nomination papers are not of that character and therefore are not covered by Section 209(4)(a), and (c) the secretary could not be held criminally liable for non-compliance when the refusal to permit inspection originated in the president's orders and corporate procedure.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 209(4)(a) read with Sections 209(5) and 209(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 are set aside and the appellant (the secretary) is acquitted; the criminal revision is allowed.

---