D. P. Sinha, J.

The petitioner, Jeewan Agrawalla has moved this court for quashing an order, dated 2. 12. 1975, by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dhanbad has staken cognizance of offence under rules 69(1) and rule 169 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the basis of a charge sheet dated 4. 10. 75 submitted by the officer incharge of the Dhanbad Police Station.

2. The order has been assailed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the charge-sheet does not contain facts, which would amount to contravention of rule 69(1) or rule 169 of the Rules and that, as such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence under rule 69(1) or rule 169 of the Rules in view of the provisions of rule 183 of the Rules.

3. Rule 183(1) lays down that no court of tribunal shall take cognizance of any alleged contravention of the Rules, or any order made there under, except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such contravention, made by a public servant.

4. It is not in dispute that a valid order under rule 69(1) of the Rules had been made by the District Magistrate of Dhanbad to whom the power to promulgate an order there under had been delegated by the Central Government under rule 34 of the Rules. The said order is not an enclosure to the petition but a copy there of has been shown by the learned counsel for the State and it appears there from that the order had been made in the following terms:

1. "No procession and meeting will be held and no assembly of five or more persons will be formed without the prior permission of the Sub-divisional Officers concerned. However, this will not be applicable to regular Cinema shows, marriage parties and funeral processions and that,

2. No person will participate in any such procession, meeting and assembly with lethal weapons like lathi, Garasa, Bhala, Sword, Spears, Bows and Arrows, firearms and explosive substance and that,

3. No group of persons will obstruct and intimidate any other person or group of persons in doing an act, which he or they, as the case may be, desired to do lawfully and that,

4. No persons or group of persons will violate the conditions imposed by competent authority on taking out a procession or demonstrations or Julus and that,

5. This order will come into force with immediate effect and will remain valid upto 31st July, 1975."

5. It is for the contravention of the said orders of the District Magistrate, dated 30. 6. 1975 that the petitioner is' being proceeded against.

6. The charge-sheet on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under rules 69(1) and 169 contains only the following statements of facts ;-

"Dt. 8.7.75 Ko 11/45 BAJE PURANA BAJAR KALI MANDIR KE NIKAT JAB MAI NAGAR PATROLLING ME SATH SHASASTRA DAL KE MUDALAYA JEEWAN AGRAWALLA KO BHARAT SARKAR KE ADESH KE BIRUDH PRACHAR KAR RAHE THE LOGON KO SARKAR KE BIRUDH BHARKA RAHE THE MAINE UNHE GIRAPHTAR KIYA UNKE ANYA SABHI SATHI BHAG GAYE AUR APANE LIKHIT REPORTMILAJIS PAR YAH KAND KAYAM KIYA. IS KAND KA GHATNA KALI STHAN MORE HAI, ANUSANDHAN SE YAH KAND DHARA 69(1)/169 D. I. R. KA ADESH MUDALAYA KE VIRUDH SAMARPIT HUA. ATAH AROPPATRA DIYA GAYA UCHIT NYAY HETU.

Sd/-Illegible

4.10.75

Dhanhad Thana."

7. It is quite obvious that there is no allegation in the said report that any procession was being taken out or a meeting was being held or attempted to be taken or held, or that an assembly of five or more persons was formed or was being attempted to be formed without the permission of the Sub-divisional Officer concerned, or that the petitioner or his companions, whose number is not mentioned, were obstructing; or intimidating any other person or group of persons in doing any act, which he or they desired to do lawfully or that he was doing any other thing in contravention of the said order of the District Magistrate. As to the propaganda which