Eusoffe Abdoolcader FJ:

The short and only point for resolution in these four consolidated appeals involves the determination of the question of the interaction if any of the Films (Censorship) Act, 1952 on the Copyright Act, 1969. These appeals are grounded on this sole issue which in fact determined the matter in the Court below.

The appellants who claimed copyright in certain films in video cassette form alleged infringement by the respondents of their copyright and instituted these proceedings for the requisite relief by way of injunctions, delivery of the offending articles, discovery and damages, and immediately on the issue of the writs applied ex parte for and obtained from Ajaib Singh J what has come to be known as Anton Piller orders on meeting the requirements laid down in the leading case of Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd. [1976] Ch 55. The respondents then applied by summons inter partes to set aside these orders for the return of all the cassettes, documents and other articles removed from their premises pursuant to the ex parte orders. The learned Judge found no merit in the contentions advanced by the respondents in their application to set aside the orders made ex parte except on the question of the publication of the films under the Copyright Act taken in conjunction with the Films (Censorship) Act. He held that as no certificates of approval were obtained as required under the Films (Censorship) Act there was no valid publication of the films within the provisions of the Copyright Act as the publication in Malaysia must be a lawful one. He accordingly adjudged the publication of the films by the appellants to be unlawful, illegal and an offence punishable under the Films (Censorship) Act and decided in effect that no copyright had been acquired as a result, and so allowed the respondents' applications, set aside the ex parte orders he had previously made and ordered the return of the articles removed from the respondents' premises.

It is not necessary to elaborate in any detail the several provisions of the two statutes in question and it will suffice to observe that copyright for works eligible therefor as enumerated in s. 4 of the Copyright Act is acquired under the provisions of that Act only, and any claim for copyright must therefore subsist within its provisions. The appellants claimed copyright in the films under the provisions of s. 6 (1)(a) of that Act on the basis that there was publication within the provisions of s. 2 (2)(c) of the Act in Malaysia within thirty days of their publication in Hong Kong. This is basically the gist of their contention, and we might add Mr. Davidson for the respondents in two of these appeals concedes there has been publication within the provisions of s. 2(2) of the Act. The Films (Censorship) Act however provides for the censorship of films which by definition in s. 2 thereof include video tapes. Section 6 of this Act provides for customs control on importation of films and a penalty for non-compliance but sub-section (4) thereof stipulates that this section shall not apply to any film which has been authorised for exhibition in Malaysia and in respect of which a certificate has been issued under s. 9(2) or 9A(2). The latter two statutory provisions prescribe the prohibition and authorisation and the classification of films and provide for the issue of certificates of approval in respect thereof. Section 15(1)(a) of this Act makes it an offence and prescribes a penalty for any person to exhibit, sell, hire or distribute any film (or cause any of these to be done) in respect of which a certificate has not been issued under s. 9(2) or 9A(2). Section 15A of the Act similarly prescribes a penalty for the unlawful possession, custody or control of any film in respect of which the requisite certificate has not been issued.

The issue then is the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of the Films (Censorship) Act on the question of acquisition