This is an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of Art. 226, Constitution of India, in a case in which the peti­tioner, Prabhat Malla Barooah, is being prosecut­ed under S. 17 (l), Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 14 of 1908), in the Court of a Magistrate at Nalbari. Mr. Barua for the petitioner demands the release of the petitioner on the following grounds: (l) That the petitioner, after his arrest by the Police, was not produced before a Court, but before a Magistrate who was not then sitting as a Court. (2) That the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate only on the occasion of the first remand, but not on any subsequent occasion. (3) That Ss. 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (l) (c), Constitution of India, and are, therefore, void; that in any case, the provisions of Ss. 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, are not reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by cl. (c) of Art. 19 (l), Con­stitution of India. [2] There is no substance in the first two con­tentions. It is not disputed by Mr. Barua that the Magistrate before whom the petitioner was produced for the purposes of a remand, did pass an order of remand. An order of remand can only be passed by a Magistrate sitting as a Court. It is immaterial where such a Magistrate was sitting at the time of the passing of the order. Neither Art. 22, Constitution of India, nor S. 167,Criminal P. C. requires the production of an accused person before a Magistrate on the occasion of a subsequent remand. [3] In regard to the third contention, Mr. Barua has relied upon the F. B. decision of the Madras High Court, V. G. Bow v. State of Madras, A. I. E. 1951 Mad. 147 (P. B.) which has taken the view that Ss. 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amend­ment Act, offend the fundamental right given by Art. 19 (l) (c), Constitution of India. The case before the learned Judges of the Madras High Court was a case under the Criminal Law Amend­ment Act, 1908, as amended by the Madras Legis­lature. 147 (P. B.) which has taken the view that Ss. 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amend­ment Act, offend the fundamental right given by Art. 19 (l) (c), Constitution of India. The case before the learned Judges of the Madras High Court was a case under the Criminal Law Amend­ment Act, 1908, as amended by the Madras Legis­lature. With all respect, any observations made by the learned Judges on the question of the validity or otherwise of the provisions of the un-amended Act, can only be regarded as obiter dicta. The State of Assam has not amended the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 (Act 14 of 1908). The case before me is one under the Cri­minal Law Amendment Act itself. [4] Mr. Barua for the petitioner conceded that the Criminal Law Amendment Act is punitive enactment, dealing as it does with a punishable offence. It is manifest that when an offence is alleged to have been committed and the offender has to be tried, some agency must be empowered to set the law in motion. In an ordinary cogni­zable offence, the agency is the Police which acts upon information received. The power to set the law in motion in respect of an offence punishable under S. 17 (l), Criminal Law Amendment Act, is conferred upon a Provincial Government-a power which it exercises in the form of a declaration made under S. 16. An offence punishable under S. 17 (l) is a cognizable offence. Until a declara­tion is made by the Provincial Government under S. 16 of the Act, the Police cannot arrest the [offender without a warrant. In other words, the effect of a declaration under S. 16 is to enable the Police to investigate a cognizable offence punishable under S. 17. [5] The learned Judges of' the Madras High Court have characterised the declaration under S. 16 as arbitrary and naked because in their view, it is not justiciable. With all respect, I am unable to share this view. The words "powers hereby conferred" in Cl. (b) of S. 15 (2) are of considerable significance. [5] The learned Judges of' the Madras High Court have characterised the declaration under S. 16 as arbitrary and naked because in their view, it is not justiciable. With all respect, I am unable to share this view. The words "powers hereby conferred" in Cl. (b) of S. 15 (2) are of considerable significance. Section 15 (2), Criminal Law Amend­ment Act defines an "unlawful association :" "An 'unlawful association" means an association-(a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habit­ually commit such acts, or (b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the Provincial Government under the powers hereby conferred the powers hereby conferred are stated in S. 16 which is in these terms: "If the Provincial Government is of opinion that any association interferes or has for its object interference with the administration of the law or with the main­tenance of law and order, or that it constitutes a danger to the public peace, the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such associa­tion to be unlawful." As I have said, some agency must be empowered to set the law in motion. In the matter of the commission of a cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code, it is the informant who sets the law in motion, and if the Police is satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed, it pro­ceeds to arrest the accused person. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, instead of an in­formant setting the law in motion it is the Provincial Govt. which sets the law in motion by making a declaration under S. 16. Without such a declaration, a Police Officer will not be in a position to arrest a person alleged to be a member of an unlawful association. [6] The subject of unlawful assemblies, as dis­tinguished from unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, is dealt with in the Indian Penal Code beginning with S. 141. Membership of an unlawful assembly as defined in S. 141, Penal Code, is made punishable under S. 143, Penal Code. [6] The subject of unlawful assemblies, as dis­tinguished from unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, is dealt with in the Indian Penal Code beginning with S. 141. Membership of an unlawful assembly as defined in S. 141, Penal Code, is made punishable under S. 143, Penal Code. An offence punishable under S. 143, Penal Code, is a cognizable offence and if the Police is informed that a particular person is a member of an unlawful assembly, the O. C. of the Police Station will proceed to investigate the case, and if satisfied upon the completion of in­vestigation that he has committed an offence under S. 143, Penal Code will send him up for trial. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a Police Officer, having regard to the provisions of S. 5, Criminal P. C., can only arrest a member of an unlawful association provided he has before him a declara­tion of the Provincial Government made under S. 16. It seems to me, then that the declaration made under S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, stands on the same footing as an information of a cognizable offence under the Indian Penal Code. [7] Viewed in this light, can it be said that when the Provincial Government declares an association to be unlawful, the declaration deprives an accused person of his right to prove that the association is not an unlawful association, and that in any case, he is not a member of such an associa­tion. It seems to me that the declaration con­templated by S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment. Act is, on the contrary, a safeguard provided for the benefit of persons who are sought to be pro­secuted under S. 17 (l) of the Act. [8] It was not suggested by Mr. Barua for the petitioner that at the trial the petitioner would be debarred from proving that he was not a mem­ber of an association declared to be unlawful by the Provincial Government. His contention was that the declaration itself was not liable to-be challenged. [8] It was not suggested by Mr. Barua for the petitioner that at the trial the petitioner would be debarred from proving that he was not a mem­ber of an association declared to be unlawful by the Provincial Government. His contention was that the declaration itself was not liable to-be challenged. But it is manifest that if the de­claration made under S. 16 serves no other pur­pose than an information given in a cognizable offence, it is open to an accused person to prove that the facts upon which the declaration is based, are not true, even as it is open to an accused person to prove that the facts upon which the information of a cognizable offence is based are not true. In my opinion, it would be open to an accused person prosecuted under S. 17 (l), Crimi­nal Law Amendment Act to prove that the association does not interfere or has for its object interference with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, and that it does not constitute a danger to the public peace. Section 15 (2) (b) must be read with S. 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act. Section 16 does not impose any restrictions; it merely lays down the requirements of a valid declaration. Far from imposing restrictions on a citizen's right given by Art. 19 (l) (c), it restricts the power of the Pro­vincial Government in the matter of making a declaration under S. 16, by laying down certain re­quirements for a valid declaration-requirements which, in my opinion, are justiciable. Assuming that the requirements of a valid declaration under S. 16 can be regarded as restrictions on the right of a citizen to form an association, I am unable to regard them as unreasonable. I scarcely think that a restriction on the right of a citizen to desist from interfering with the administration of law or with the maintenance of law, can be characterised as unreasonable. Manifestly it is reasonable, for instance, to prevent a citizen from forming an association for the purpose of way­laying witnesses on their way to a Court of law, by declaring him a member of an unlawful asso­ciation. [9] In the result, I am unable to hold that the provisions of Ss. Manifestly it is reasonable, for instance, to prevent a citizen from forming an association for the purpose of way­laying witnesses on their way to a Court of law, by declaring him a member of an unlawful asso­ciation. [9] In the result, I am unable to hold that the provisions of Ss. 15 and 16, Criminal Law Amend­ment Act of 1908 (Act XIV [14] of 1908) offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (l) (c), Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.