SHANKAR VIDEO AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHANKAR VIDEO AND ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Cinematograph Act, 1952/Bombay Cinema (Regulations) Act, 
1953/Maharashtra Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1966 (as amended in 1987): 
S.2(c)/ss.2(a), 9/44.2.(c), 2([-6), Chapter Ill-B, rr.24-C-24-I, 24-
J-!'Video Cinema''-Video projector used to exhibit pre-recorded movies on 
video cassettes with aid of VCRJVCP on a wide screen or wall fall within the 
ambit of "video cinema" as defined in r.2([-6}-Exhibition of moving pictures 
with aid of video projector amounts to giving such exhibition through the 
medium of television. 
Word 
1'Television
11 in expression 'through the medium of television
11 in 
r.2(f-6) would include a device having a screen operating on television 
technology-The screen need not be inbuilt in the device and can be separate 
from the apparatus. 
Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923: 
S.2-j-''Video Exhibition ''-Includes exhibition of cinematograph film 
on the screen of a video projector-Video projection system is different from 
a conventional cinema-theatre and is akin to a television set. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The appellants in appeal No.3213 of 1993, installed a video projector 
system called 'ENTEL' whereby pre-recorded movies on a video cassette 
were exhibited with the aid of VCR/VCP on a wide screen or a wall. They 
obtained licences under the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 
1966 as amended by the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) 
Rules, 1987, to run a video cinema and were permitted to give exhibition G 
by means of VCR/VCP for a charge of Rs.2 per person "ith a permitted 
seating capacity of 75 persons. Respondent No.3, having a licence to run 
a touring cinema, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
grant of licences to the appellants on the ground that their business was 
not covered by the definition of 'video cinema" contained in rule 2(f-6). 
H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the video 
projector installed by the appellants differed from a television set and it 
was more akin to the projector in a conventional cinema and that it did 
not fall within the definition of video cinema contained in rule 2(f-6) of the 
Rules. The High Court, therefore, directed the State authorities to: (i) 
B refrain from issuing licences for the conduct of video cinemas which used 
systems having separate projectors and separate screens (ii) issue video 
licence to only those who use T.V. sets with inbuilt picture tube of a size 
of more than 51 ems. and; (iii) forthwith cancel such illegal licences if 
issued and to stop shows on separate screens in video cinemas. The 
appellants filed the appeal by special leave. The other appeal was filed by 
C four others who were running similar business and were affected by the 
.Judgment of the High Court. 
On the question: whether the video projectors used by the appellants 
. to exhibit pre-recorded movies on a video cassette with the aid of a 
VCR/VCP on a wide screen or a wall, can be reia:arded a "video cinema
11 
D within the meaning of Rule 2 (f-6) of the Maharashtra Cinema (Regulation) 
Rules, 1966. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The video projectors used by the appellants fall within the 
ambit of the definition of "video cinema" contained in rule 2(f-6) of the 
Maharashtra Cinema (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules 1987 and the High 
Court was not justified in taking a view to the contrary. (184-D] 
2. Keeping in view the provisions contained in clauses (i) and (iii) 
F of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 24-1 of the Rules, the word "television" in the 
expression "through the medium of television" in rule 2(f-6) cannot be 
construed to mean a television set only. The said expression has to be 
interpreted to mean the system for reproducing on a screen visual images 
transmitted by radio singnals. It would include a device having a screen 
G operating on television technology. It is not the requirement of the said 
expression that the screen must be inbuilt in the device and it cannot be 
separate from the apparatus. (179-A-B, F-H; 180-A) 
Concise Oxford Dictionary referred to. 
H 
World Book Encyclopaedia, (1989) Vol.19, pp.95-98; The New En-
SHANKAR VIDEO v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
171 
cyclopaedia B1itannica, 15th Edn., Vol.15, pp.238-43; McGraw-Hill En-
A 
cyclopaedia of Science & Technology, 6th Edn., Vol.18, pp.184-88, 196-201,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.