JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:—Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. These appeals raise for consideration the question whether a video parlour wherein a pre-recorded cassette of a cinematograph film is exhibited through the medium of video cassette recorder (VCR) / video cassette 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).

4. The appellants have been running video parlours in the State of Haryana wherein pictures are exhibited through the medium of VCRs. They have not obtained any licence for 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 the Rules, they moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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 cinematograph 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 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 of a Division Bench of the said High Court in M/s. Deep Snack Bar, Sonepat v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 Punj & Har 377, wherein it was held that a VCR is included within the ambit of the definition of "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 in the Punjab Entertainment Duty Rules, 1956 in the State of Haryana in 1984 wherein separate 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 anyway affect the interpretation of the definition of the cinematograph contained under Section 2(a) of the Act. Letters patent appeals filed against the said decision of the learned single Judge were dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated November 26, 1991, Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 2219, 2255, 2344 and 2348 have been filed against the said orders of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the letters patent appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4706 has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated January 22,1992 dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant in the said appeal.

5. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 has been enacted by Parliament to make provision for certification of cinematograph films for exhibition and for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematograph. The expression cinematograph 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".

6. The same definition of the expression cinematograph is contained in Section 2(a) of the Act.

7. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in M/s. Deep Snack Bar, Sonepat v. State of Haryana (AIR 1984 Punj and Har 377) (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