JUDGMENT B. P. Jha, J. The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the order of cognizance dated the 29th of November, 1969, passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The Officer-in-Charge of Pupri Police-Station submitted a report on the 25th of September, 1969 to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sitamarhi that these petitioners had taken out a procession without obtaining any licence. The Police, therefore, suggested that these petitioners may be prosecuted under section 32 of the Police Act, 1861 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') for taking out procession without license. 2. The counsel for the petitioners Shri Thakur Prasad contended that the prosecution under section 32 of the Act is not maintainable in law because there is no allegation in the report that any general or special notice was issued to these petitioners for applying for a license under section 30 (2) of the Act. The members of a procession may be; prosecuted under section 32 of the Act provided that they have disobeyed the order issued under the three proceeding sections, namely, section 30, 30 A and 31 of the Act. The report of the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station dated the 25th of September, 1969 does not disclose that any general or special notice was issued under section, 30(2) of the Act that they had to apply for a license. In the present case, the police report does not suggest that the petitioners disobeyed any orders issued under sections 30, 30A, and 31 of the Act. In the absence of such allegation, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for committing the offence under section 32 of the Act. In this connection, the learned counsel cited a decision of this Court in Emperor Versus Shamakandu and others In that decision it was held that under section 30 of the Act there must be a notice, special or general, on each occasion on which an in tended assembly or assemblies is or are required by the Superintendent of Police to be controlled by means of licenses to be taken out by the persons celebrating the festivities concerned. In that case it was admitted by the District Magistrate that there was no notice forbidding the pro cession in connection with the Mohurrum of 1916. In the present case, the report does not disclose any issue of notice under section 30(2) of the Act. In that case it was admitted by the District Magistrate that there was no notice forbidding the pro cession in connection with the Mohurrum of 1916. In the present case, the report does not disclose any issue of notice under section 30(2) of the Act. It also does not suggest that the petitioners disobeyed any order issued under sections 30, 30A and 31 of the Act. 3. In the result, I allow the application and quash the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the police report dated the 29th of November, 1969 for the simple reason that the Police report does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. I shall suggest to the Central Government that the necessary amendment be made in section 30 of the Act for controlling the procession. Application allowed.