9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Legislature , without being possessed of the required legislative competence and of Section 10(2) of the Act requiring every person keeping Video Library licensed under the Act not to sell, let to hire, distribute, exchange or put into circulation a cinematograph film which is not certified by the authority under Cinematograph Act, 1952 as suitable for public exhibition and does not contain the prescribed mark or if contains a mark, the film is not altered or tampered with after affixure of such mark, as that enacted by the State Legislature, is invalid and unworkable. 2. Before taking up for consideration the contentions urged in these appeals against the striking down by the High Court sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Act, it would be advantageous to advert to the scheme of the Act, as could be found from the Preamble and the provisions of the Act. 3. Object sought to be achieved by the State Legislature by enacting the Act, as declared in its Preamble, is the regulation in the State of Tamil Nadu of the exhibition of films on Television screen through Video Cassette Recorders. 4. 'Video Cassette Recorder' is defined in clause (6) of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Cassette Recorder to produce when demanded by an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, a letter of consent for such exhibition from the person who is the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film under section 17 'of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Central Act XIV of 1957) and in ease such copyright has been assigned under section 18 of the said Act, from the assignee of such copyright. But, section 9(2), which is struck down by the High Court in the judgment under appeals reads: Every person keeping a Video Library licensed under this Act, shall in respect of each film in his possession, produce when demanded by an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, a letter of consent from the person who is the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film under section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Central Act XIV of 1957) and in case such copyright has been assigned under section 18 of the said Act, from the assignee of such copyright. 6. Then, coming to section 10(1) it enjoins that no person licensed under this Act to give an exhibition of film on Television screen through Video Cassette Recorder shall exhibit or permit to be exhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce granted under the Act punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine. Section 16 of the Act while provides for offences by companies, section 17 of the Act deals with the power to enter, search and seize. Section 18 of the Act deals with confiscation of films exhibited or kept in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 19 states that no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under the Act. Section 20 of the Act states that any offence punishable under the Act shall be a cognizable offence. While section 22 deals with power of the Government to make rules for carrying the purpose of the Act, the remaining sections in the Act deal with ancillary or incidental matters. 9. Thus, from the above Preamble and the provisions of the Act, it becomes obvious that the State Legislature by enacting the Act has evolved a comprehensive legislative scheme aimed at regulating in the whole State of Tamil Nadu of the exhibition of cinematograph films on Television screen through Video Cassette Recorders by requiring pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Act. That sub-section, as could be seen therefrom requires of every person keeping a Video Cassette Library licensed under the Act to produce in respect of each film in his possession, when demanded by an officer authorised by the Government in that behalf, a letter of consent from the person, who is the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film under section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and in case such copyright has been assigned under section 18 of that Act, from the assignee of such copyright. The High Court, placing reliance on the definition clause (f) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has, as a matter of fact, held in its judgment under appeals that a copyright should be taken to have been created in respect of a video film under the Copyright Act, 1957, negativing the contention raised before it, to the contrary. The High Court also does not say that every person carrying on the business of selling, letting to hire, distribution, exchange or putting into circulation in any manner whatsoever of such film for the purpose of exhibition, can carry on such business without the consent from the person, who is the first owner of such copyright or it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishable, can be no ground for holding that the State Legislature in requiring the keeping of a consent letter from the copyright holder or his assignee for doing business in the film which is necessary for carrying on the such business lawfully can be said to make the State Legislature to lose the legislative competence which it had on the subject of 'cinema' in List- II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court, in our view, in taking into consideration the cognizable nature of the offence and a severe penalty impossible for the offence of not keeping a letter of consent obtained from the first owner of the copyright of the film or assignee thereof, for reaching the conclusion that the State Legislature has no legislative competence to legislate on the subject of 'cinema' has taken into consideration matters which were not germane to the consideration of the question of legislative competence of a legislature on a subject. It is, however, difficult to think that when a regulatory legislative measure is enacted by a legislature on a subject within its competence requiring a person to obtain a licence for doing certain business concerned with the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10(2) requires a person keeping a Video Library of films which are not meant for public exhibition, cannot sell, let to hire, distribute, exchange or put into circulation in any manner whatsoever any of them unless certified as suitable for public exhibition by the authority constituted under section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and which, when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark of that Authority and has not been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto. 17. The said view, as contended on behalf of the appellants before us, is not based upon a proper construction of subsection (2) of section 10 having regard to its setting in section 10. The contention was, if sub- section (2) of section 10 has to be properly understood having regard to its setting in section 10 of the Act, it could only relate to those films which are not meant for public exhibition and if so understood, the conclusion reached by the High Court that the sub-section is invalid and unworkable becomes unsustainable. There is, in our opinion, substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants. Section 10 as a whole reads thus 10. Licensee to exhibit only certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the authority constituted under section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and which, when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark oF that authority and has not been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto the legislative intendment. In imposing such restriction on the Video Library or a person keeping a Video Library cannot be anything other than imposing it in respect of films which are intended for public exhibition. If that be the effect of the provision and its requirement, question of invalidating it on the ground that it applies to films with licensed persons keeping Video Library for films other than those meant for public exhibition, cannot arise, as rightly contended for on behalf of the appellants. Hence, the view taken by the High Court that section 10(2) is invalid and unworkable, cannot be sustained. 19. Thus, the view of the High Court that section 9(2) was invalid and ultra vires being enacted by State Legislature without the required legislative competence and its view that section 10(2) was invalid and unworkable because it applied to films other than those which are meant for public exhibition and hence both of them were liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
