ORDER V.R. Nevaskar, J 1. The only question involved in this petition for revision is regarding propriety of exercise of powers u/s 107, Cr. P. C. under the circumstances of the present case. 2. Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the members of the socialist party. They went to the Collector at Indore on 23-1-1959 along with one more member of the group Ramtahal after parading through the principal streets of the City in small procession. They carried placards with them containing the demands of the party to bring down the prices of food-grains, to stop the export trade in them, to exempt articles of common use from sales-tax, to stop retrenchment of the Mill-workers, to raise the minimum salary of an employee to Rs. 100/- and to make Hindi the official language. They shouted slogans by the use of megaphone to the same effect. When these five precisionists reached the main postal of the Collectorate they were stopped by the station officer Juni Indore police-station who had already reached there with a posse. They were also told that in case they wanted to go into the inner open space of the Collectorate and particularly near Collector's office in the manner in which they were moving, they would not be allowed to do so unless the Collector had been consulted. It is said that the police officer after consulting the Collector gave a message that any one of them might see him. The processionists however insisted to march in group with their placards and megaphone. They were thereupon arrested on the spot and proceedings u/s 107, Cr. P. C. were started against them. Although it was alleged by the police that the processionists defied the lawful authority of the police by pushing a member of the police party yet the allegation was found to be not duly substantiated, 3. The principle grounds on which the processionists were held to have given rise of apprehension of breach of peace were that :- (1) The processionists had been to the Collectorate during office hours and shouting slogans particularly by the use of megaphone was bound to cause disturbance thereby affecting smooth carrying on of the office and court work. This would certainly have led to disturb public tranquility or cause breach of peace. This would certainly have led to disturb public tranquility or cause breach of peace. (2) The low paid government employees in the Collectorate might have got excited as a result of slogans and would have looted the district treasury or the slogans might have annoyed officials who did not know Hindi language or would have caused excitement amongst the litigant public. 4. The learned Magistrate considered the second ground as baseless for creating reasonable apprehension regarding breach of the peace or public tranquility. He however considered the first ground to be proper to justify the proceedings against the processionists u/s 107, Cr. P. C. He accordingly ordered them to execute a bond of Rs. 50/-each with a surety in the like sum for good behavior for a period of one month from the date of the order. 5. The order was appealed against. The appellate court held that although the order to be of good behavior was outside the purview of Sec. 107, Cr- P. G. yet it was merely a slip of pen on the part of the Magistrate who should have written for keeping peace instead of for good behavior. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the decision in Driver vs. Queen Empress. 25 Cal-798, in support of his view that in spite of such a slip if the facts necessary for exercising powers u/s 107, Cr. P. C. had been established, the irregularity was curable. On merits he agreed with the Magistrate that the processionists clearly wanted to get into the Collectorate premises in a body with their placards and megaphones and also wanted to shout slogans and that this was calculated to cause disturbance of public tranquility though not breach of peace. Their appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6. In this petition for revision it is contended by Mr. Oza that the use of powers u/s 107, Cr. P. C. under the circumstances of the case was not anything else than abuse of the process of the court. He urged that the processionists had a right to move in a procession of limited size and to ventilate their demands before the administrative head of the district in a reasonable manner. They like any other member of the public, had a right to get into the inner open space of the Collectorate with a view to put up their demand. They like any other member of the public, had a right to get into the inner open space of the Collectorate with a view to put up their demand. The number of the processionists was not large and there was hardly any reason for the apprehension that public tranquility would have been disturbed. If what they had done would have caused any disturbance in the work of any court or public office they could have been hauled up for a substantive offence if any. But it cannot be said that because five of them wanted to see the Collector in a body there would have been disturbance of public tranquility. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with this question observes:- The common object of the appellants was to approach the Collector in a body with their party flag, megaphone and placards in hands and shouting slogans. I say so because it is not their case that they had left behind the above articles before entering into the Collectorate. This they were doing against the orders of the Collector and consequently they were bound to annoy him. Theirs was therefore an unlawful assembly. Their wrongful act might not have led to a breach of the peace but it was bound to disturb the public tranquility. They were demonstrating at the Collectorate during office hours. Besides the office of the Collector, the building houses courts of law. Their entry itself into the office of the Collector in the above fashion would have disturbed the public tranquility. And then where was the guarantee that they would not shout slogans inside his office. 8. There was no evidence on record to prove the intention of the five processionists to shout slogans inside the office of the Collector though the learned Additional Sessions Judge seemed to think that it was a reasonable apprehension. He also thought what they were doing in getting into the inner compound was against the direction of the Collector. 9. On the reasoning of the learned Judge tranquility in the office of the Collector would have been disturbed and the Collector as well as other men and officers of his office would have been prevented from going on with their business. But assuming this, does this involve disturbance of public tranquility although it may involve disturbance in the smooth working of the office. But assuming this, does this involve disturbance of public tranquility although it may involve disturbance in the smooth working of the office. Occurrence of disturbance in the working of the government offices in a city by the noise created in the neighborhood is not unusual and that by itself may not in all cases provided sufficient ground to have recourse to security proceedings. In this case the apprehension that the petitioners would shout slogans even in inner compound of the Collectorate is not based on any other material than the circumstance that they had come shouting slogans along the streets upto the outer gate. At the gate they are not stated to have expressed their intention to shout slogans thereby disturbing the working inside. 10. The statement of the Sub-inspector of Police Gajanand indicates that the apprehension he entertained was that the work of the Magistrate's Court might have been disturbed or any of those five persons might set fire to anything. There was no reasonable basis for the last mentioned suggestion. He also stated that by shouting political slogans of various descriptions relating to the food shortage, language issue, salary of Government employees receiving less than Rs. 100 and regarding removal of Mill labourers might give rise to breach of peace. It was admitted by him that none of the workers and officers in the Collectorate complained to him that he was disturbed in the work nor did any member of the public said so. It also appeared from the statement of the witness that within five minutes of their coming at the gate, the Additional District Magistrate Mr. Bhargava went to them and had a brief talk with them. Other people had free access to the inner compound according to him. 11. Having regard to this statement which is practically all the material in support of the action u/s 107 Cr. P. C., it is difficult to hold the order to be sustainable. It is a common feature in a democracy that political parties parade through the streets some times in large numbers shouting party slogans on some live issues having political significance and which might give tactical advantage to their party. There is nothing unlawful in it In this case the number of persons was only five. Their going to the Collectorate can also be not said to be unlawful. There is nothing unlawful in it In this case the number of persons was only five. Their going to the Collectorate can also be not said to be unlawful. People had a free access into the inner open space of the Collectorate and nobody except the five persons including the four petitioners were stopped from entering. Possible apprehension, if there be any, was that there would be some noise due to shouting of political slogans. But upon this point also the evidence is not decisive. Moreover this cannot by itself be a case involving breach of peace or public tranquility within the meaning of Sec. 107, Cr. P. C. 12. I am therefore inclined to hold that the action to bound down the petitioners u/s 107, Cr. P. C. under the circumstances of the present case was not proper. 13. I would therefore allow the petition and set aside the order. Petition allowed.