M/S. LAXMI VIDEO THEATERS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 159 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. LAXMI VIDEO THEATERS AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
JULY 14, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Ci11ematograph Act, 1952-S.2(a}-Punjab Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 
1952, S.2(c)-Pu11jab Ci11emas (Regulatio11) Rules, 1952-Video parlour ex-
hibiti11g pre-recorded cassette of cinematograph film through VCR!VCP. Held, 
is within the definition of 'cinematograph'-Punjab Entertainmellt Duty Act, 
1955, S.3A and Pu11jab Entertai11ment Duty Rules 1956, R.8A in the State of 
Haryana. 
lnte1pretation of Statute;-Whether "Cinematograph" includes VCR! 
A 
B 
c 
VCP-Held, it includes any apparatus for representation of moving pictures 
or series of picture:;-The definition must be given a meaning that takes into D 
account subsequent scientific development:;-Cinematograph Act, 1952, 
S.2(c}-Punjab Cinema (Regualation) Act, 1952, S.2(a) 
The appellants ran video parlours in the State of Haryana. When 
they were required to obtain the necessary licence under the Punjab E 
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (the Act) and the Punjab Cinema (Regula· 
tion) Rules, 1952 (the Rules), they approached the High Court for an 
appropriate writ declaring that they were not required to obtain such 
licence. They contended that the VCR used for playing a pre-recorded 
cassette does not constitute "cinematograph" under S.2(c) of the 
Cinematograph Act, 1952 and S.2(a) of the Act. 
F 
A learned Single Judge relaying on Mis. Deep Snack Bar Sonepat v. 
State of Haryana, AIR (1984) P&H 377, negatived this contention. He also 
held that separate provisions made for levy of entertainments on video 
shows in 1984 in S.3A of the Act and Rule SA of the Rules did not affect G 
the interpretation of the definition of "cinematograph" in S.2(a) of the Act. 
Letters patent appels were dismissed in limine by a Division Bench. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. The definition of the expression "cinematograph" con- H 
159 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A tained in Section 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Section 2(a) of 
the Act is an inclusive definition which includes any apparatus for repre· 
sentation of moving pictures or series of pictures. The said definition 
cannot be confined in its application to an aparatus for representation of 
moving pictures or series of pictures which was known on the date of the 
B enactment of the said rovision. It must be given a meaning which takes 
into account the subsequent scientific developments in the field. [162-F-G] 
Jhe Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra & Ors., (1962) 
3 SCR 146, followed. 
C 
The VCR/VCP were developed in 1970s and achieve the same purpose 
as the traditional media for exhibition of moving pictures. There is nothing 
in the Act which excludes the applicability of the Act to VCR/VCP. [163-C) 
Mis. Deep Snack Bar, Sonepat v. State of Haryana, AIR (1984) P&H 
377; Restaurant Lee v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR (1983) MP 146; 
D . Ba/winder Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1984) Delhi 379 and Dinesh 
Kumar Hanuman Prasad Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) Bombay 
34, affirmed. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3275 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1991 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No.1595/91. 
And C.A. Nos. 3277, 3276, 3278 & 3279/93. 
F 
A.P.S. Chauhan, Roopindra Singh, A.S. Bulidir and K.K. Gupta for 
the Appellants. 
S.K. Dholakia, S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
These appeals raise for consideration the question whether a video 
H parlour wherein a pre-recorded cassette of a cinematograph film is ex· 
/ 
/ 
LAXMIVIDEO v.STATEOFHARYANA[AGRAWAL,J.] 
161 
hibited through the medium of video cassette recorder (VCR)/video cas-
A 
sette player (VCP) falls within the ambit of the definition of 
'cinematograph' contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Punjab 
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
The appellants have been running video parlours in the State of B 
Haryana wherein pictures are exhibited through the medium of V CRs. 
They have not obtained any licence fot such exhibition of pictures under 
the provisions of the Act and the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1952 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as applicable in the State of 
Haryana. As they were required to obtain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.