Judgment : The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.5353 of 1985 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. 2. Accused is the licensee and accused 2 is the manager of the video shop “TIC TAC Video and Audio Library” situated at No.10, Corporation Building, 3rd Cross Street, R.A.Puram, Madras-28. In the said Video Centre, cassettes are distributed for hire. On 17. 1985 at about 12 noon, the above shop was inspected by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore. 25 Video cassettes of cinematograph films were available in the shop. When the Assistant Commissioner of Police demanded a letter of consent from the person, who is the first owner of the copyright the cinematograph film under Sec.17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, accused 1 and 2. were unable to produce any such letter. Consequently, a case in Crime No.450 of 1985 had been registered at E.4. Abhiramapuram Police Station, Mylapore Range against both the accused for the alleged contravention of Sec.9(2) of the Tamilnadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Act, 1984 punishable under Sec.5(2) of the said Act. 3. After completing the formalities of the investigation, a final report under Sec.173(2), Cr.P.C. had been laid before the Court against the petitioners/accused for the above said offence. 4. After the receipt of the process, the petitioners/ accused came forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Entertaining Enterprises v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Writ L.R. 57, which struck down the provisions of Sec.9(2) and certain other provisions of the said Act as ultra vires and invalid of the Constitution, would submit that the prosecution launched against the petitioners/accused now pending as C.C.No.5353 of 1985 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras has to be necessarily quashed, in the sense of the prosecution not having valid sanction of law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor repelling such a submission would contend that since the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it is futile for the petitioners now to contend that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is not having the valid sanction of law. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor repelling such a submission would contend that since the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, it is futile for the petitioners now to contend that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is not having the valid sanction of law. On hearing the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the petitioners, without even disputing the factum of preference of an appeal by the State and obtaining of order of stay of the operation of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as aforesaid, would have the audacity and temerity and guts to contend that such order of stay of operation is of no consequence, to which I am unable to affix my seal of approval. 6. In this view of the matter, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners cannot at all be ordered to be quashed. 7. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.