SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Bom) 298

QAZI
Dineshkumar Hanumanprasad Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
R.S. Padhye, for Applicant; D.D. Sinha, Public Prosecutor, for the State; R.H. Akhani, for Intervener.

ORDER:- This order shall also dispose of Criminal Applications Nos. 470/ 83, 471/83, 479/83, 480/83, 483/83 and 558/83. In all these petitions, the petitioners are the proprietors of cafe and restaurants which are being run in different parts of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners are exhibiting films in their restaurants to their customers, free of charge, through Video and T.V. sets. According to them, the exhibition of cinema, free of charges, to the customers with the aid of magnetic tape cannot come under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. They have further stated that the Video Cassette Recorder, popularly known as VCR, is designed to record sound and pictures in both black and white as well as colour on magnetic tape. The tape that is used is a magnetic tape without having nitrocellulose or some other synthetic base and, therefore, cannot be called "film" as the word was understood when the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was enacted. According to them, at that time, the film meant a sheet or ribbon of celluloid or the like prepared with the coating for ordinary photographs or for instantaneous photographs by projection by cinematograph.

2. Mr. Padhye has invited my























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top