JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition in revision to quash a proceeding u/s 18, Indian Penal Code, in G.R. case No. 65 of 1959, pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sambalpur. 2. On the 28th January 1954, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sambalpur, promulgated an order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibiting public meeting and processions of five or more persons at several places mentioned in that order including Hirakud, Burla and Jamada. That order was extended upto the 27th June 1955 by Home Department (Special Section) Notification No. 715-C dated the 27th March 1954; and by another Home Department Notification No. 2150-C dated the 22nd June 1954 it was extended for an indefinite period. 3. The twenty-three Petitioners were alleged to have contravened the aforesaid order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, which is an offence punishable u/s 188, Indian Penal Code. The offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code, was made cognizable in Sambalpur District by notification of the Government of Bihar and Orissa, in the Political Department, No. 10193-C dated the 26th December, 1932 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XXIII of 1932) See Bihar and Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 26th December, 1932. Hence the case against the Petitioners was initiated by a regular F.I.R. drawn up by the local Police who submitted charge-sheet before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. That Magistrate took cognizance, on the basis of that charge-sheet and issued processes against the Petitioners under Sections 143, 145 and 188, Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. B.M. Patnaik's main contention, in support of this revision petition, is that notwithstanding the fact that the offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code was made cognizable, the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, ought to have been complied with and that cognizance of that offence should have been taken only on a complaint in writing made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whose order was disobeyed or by the State Government who was the authority superior to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In my opinion, this contention is well founded. A Division Bench of this Court in The State of Orissa Vs. In my opinion, this contention is well founded. A Division Bench of this Court in The State of Orissa Vs. Oria Sama Majhi, examined the question as to whether the ban on taking cognizance, imposed by Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure was impliedly taken away when the offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code was made cognizable by an appropriate notification issued by the State Government. That Bench held that notwithstanding the issue of such a notification the provision of Section 195(1), Code of Criminal Procedure should be complied with and in the absence of a complaint in writing by the Magistrate concerned the entire proceeding was invalid. The instant case is identical with that case, on facts, and with respect I would follow that aforesaid decision and hold that the entire proceeding before the Magistrate commencing from the taking of cognizance is invalid and should be quashed. 5. It is true that the Police submitted charge-sheet u/s 143 and US, Indian penal Code, also and these offences do not require a complaint in writing by the Court concerned. But the F.I.R. shows that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to disobey the order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence u/s 188, Indian Penal Code and the offence u/s 143, and US, Indian Penal Code are merely ancillary to the same. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Basir-Ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal AIR 1951 Ori 138 the provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be evaded "by merely changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure". Hence the entire proceeding must be held to have been vitiated by the invalidity arising out of want of proper complaint. 6. Mr. Patnaik also raised two other interesting points. Firstly, he urged that the power of the State Government under Sub-section (6) of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure to extend the duration of the publication order under that section, issued by the Magistrate, concerned, cannot be issued for the purpose of indefinitely extending that order, and that once an extension for a specified period is made, that power is exhausted. Secondly, he contended that if the original order u/s 144, passed by the Magistrate and the subsequent orders of extension passed by the State Government be carefully scrutinised, it would appear that they were really drawn up against the eleven persons named therein and that they were not applicable to the "public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place" as contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Section 144. According to him, these orders were required to be obeyed only by the eleven persons to whom they were addressed and not by the Petitioners or any other member of the general public. He further urged that a general order under Sub-section (3) of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure should be limited to a "particular place" which the general public may frequent or visit and should not be expressed in very wide terms so as to be applicable to a large area, including several villages, such as, Chilantikud, Hirakud Burla, Kirba, Laxmidungri, Jamada and Jannani. 7. There is considerable force in these contentions and the validity of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in its application to the general public and also the validity of the subsequent orders of extension passed by the State Government in purported exercise of their jurisdiction under Sub-section (6) of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure require careful examination by this Court if and when the necessity arises in future. But in view of my holding the entire proceeding to be invalid due to want of a proper complaint in writing from the public servant concerned, it is unnecessary for this Court to express any opinion on these questions at this stage. 8. The revision petition is allowed, and the proceeding against the Petitioners in G.R. Case No. 65 of 1959 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sambalpur, is quashed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed