M/S. LAXMI VIDEO THEATERS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

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

                              JULY 14, 1993

              [P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]                               B

        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,     c
1955, S.3A and Pu11jab Entertai11ment Duty Rules 1956, R.8A in the State of
Haryana.

       lnte1pretation of Statute;-Whether "Cinematograph" includes VCR!
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.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3275 of
    1993.
E
         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 VCRs.
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 the necessary licence under the
Act and and the Rules, they moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana C
for an appropriate writ declaring that they are not required to obtain such
licence. The case of the appellants was that the VCR used for the purpose
of playing a pre-recorded video cassette does not constitute 'cinema-
tograph' as defined in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Cinematograph Act,
1952 and the clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act. A learned single Judge of D
the High Court by his judgment dated May 7, 1991, rejected the. said
contention of the appellants and dismissed the writ petitions. The learned
Judge has, in this regard, placed reliance on the earlier decision Qf a
Division Bench of the said Court in M/s. Deep Snack Bar, Sonepat & Others
v. State of Haryana & Another, AIR (1984) Punjab & Haryana 377, whrein
it was held that a VCR is included within the ambit of the definition of E
"cinematograph" contained in Section 2(a) of the Act. The learned single
judge rejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that Section
3-A as inserted in the Punjab .Entertainment Duty Act, 1955 _in the State
of Haryana in 1984 and Rule 8-A inserted ;n the Punjab Entertainment
Duty Rules, 1956 in the State of Haryana in 1984 wherein separate F
provisions have been made for levy of entertainment duty on video shows
indicate that video parlours have not been treated at par with regular
cinemas. The learned judge held that the said provisions do not in any way
affect the interpretation of the definition of the 'cinemalograph' contained
under Section 2( a) of the Act. Letters Patent Appeals filed against·the said
decision of the A learned single judge were dismissed in limine by a G
Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated November 26, 1991.
Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs no. 2219, 2255, 2344 and 2348 have been
filed against the said orders of the Division Bench of ·th~ Ji~gh Court
dismissing the letters patent appeal against the order of the learned single
judge. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) N0.4706 has been filed against H
    162                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. l S.C.R.

A the order or the Division Bench of the High Court dated January 22, 1992
    dismissing in /imine the writ petition filed by the appellant in the said
    appeal.

        The Cinematograph Act, 1952 has been enacted by Parliament to
  make provision for certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and
B for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematograph. The expression
  'cinematograph' is defined in Section 2( a) of the said Act as under :

             "(c) 'cinematograph' includes any apparatus for the representation
             of running pictures or series of pictures   11




c         The same definition of the expression 'cinematograh' is contained in
    Section 2(a) of.the Act.

           The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &
    Haryana in M/s. Deep Snack Bar, Sonepat, & Others v. State of Haryana &
D   Another, (supra) holding that the definition of 'cinematograph' contained
    in Section 2(a) of the Act, being an inclusive definition, would cover VCR
    which is used for representation of the motion pictures, is in line with the
    decisions of the other High Courts wherein also VCR has been held be
    covered by the definition of 'cinematograph'. See : Restaurant Lee & Ors.
E   v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR (1983) MP 146; Ba/winder Singh
    v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1984) Delhi 379; Dinesh Kumar Hanuman
    Prasad Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Bombay 34.

          We are in agreement with this view. The definition of the expression
    'cinematograph' contained in Section 2(c) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
F   and Section 2(a) of the Act is an inclusive definition which includes any
    apparatus for representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. The
    said definition cannot be confined in its application to an apparatus for
    representation of moving pictures or series of pictures which was known
    on the date of the enactment of the said provision. It must be given a
G meaning which takes into account the subsequent scientific developments
    in the field in accordance with principle of statutory construction laid down
    in The Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Nmyana Chopra & Ors., f1962J 3
    SCR 146. In that case it has been held -

            11
             ••• .In a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable lo

H           confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable
              LAXMIVIDEO v. STATEOFHARYANA[AGRAWAL,J.]                       163

              to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern A
              Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving
              must be presumed to be aware of an ~nlarged meaning the same
              concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolu-
              tionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and
              scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a B
              contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to
              the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words
              are capable of comprehending them".

                                                                    (pp.156-157)

           The VCR/VCP were developed in 1970s and achieve the same                 c
     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.

           The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that VCR/VCP are D
     within the ambit of the definition of 'cinematograph' contained in Section
     2(a) of the Act and the appellants in order to carry on the business of
     running video parlours/or showing pre-reorded cassettes of films through
     the medium of VCR/VCP must obtain a licence in accordance. with the
     provisions of the Act and the Rules.
                                                                                    E
            The appeals are accordingly disnusscd but with no orders as to costs.

     U.R.                                                    Appeals dismissed.




1.
 \