JUDGMENT 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 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 the petitioner was said to have made against the Government of India, the detail or even the substance as to what actually that propaganda was, had not been stated at all in the charge sheet. As to the propaganda which the petitioner was said to have made against the Government of India, the detail or even the substance as to what actually that propaganda was, had not been stated at all in the charge sheet. There is no mention even of the number of the companions of the petitioner whether it was four or more or less than that. It is manifest from the charge sheet that the allegations were entirely vague and the facts stated therein do not appear to constitute a contravention of the order of the District Magistrate made under rule 69(1) of the Rules. In the circumstances the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance can not be sustained and it is fit to be quashed on that ground alone because under rule 183 of the Rules, the report itself must contain, but the charge sheet• in this case does not contain the statement of facts constituting the alleged contravention of the order made under rule 69(1). 8. Learned Counsel for the State argued with great vehemence that where the report contemplated under rule 183 of the rules is made by a police officer, who is a public servant, in the form of a charge sheet, then in that case, though the report, i. e., the charge sheet itself may not contain the facts constituting the offence, the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance must look into the evidence of the witness examined by the police and the First Information report before applying his mind to the question as to whether a contraventi0n of rule 69(1) or rule 169 has taken place and that in that view of the matter the Magistrate's order was not fit to be interfered with, as in this case the First Information report and the statements of the witness examined by the police would support the order of the Magistrate. This argument has been made in complete disregard of the mandatory provisions of Rule 183 and, in the second place, the argument is wholly irrelevant in view of the fact that the Magistrate himself did not claim to have looked into those documents while taking cognizance of the alleged contravention of rules 69(1) and 169 of the Rules. He has acted on the charge sheet only as is quite evident from the impugned order itself. 9. He has acted on the charge sheet only as is quite evident from the impugned order itself. 9. Rule 183(1) of the Rules places a bar on the power of the Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code to take cognizance of offences. It has already been stated that Rule 183(1) lays down• that no court or tribunal shall take cognizance of any alleged contravention of the rules or of any order made there under, except on a report in writing of facts constituting such contravention made by public servant. This sub-rule speaks of a report in writing made by a public servant. It further provides that the report must contain the facts constituting such contravention. If the report itself does not contain the facts constituting the contravention, the Magistrate is not entitled to take cognizance of the alleged contravention of the Rules. There is hardly any substance in the argument of the learned counsel that because the report is a charge sheet, the Magistrate must call for the statement of the witnesses and the First Information report a1ad peruse the same for finding out whether prima facie a contravention of rule 69(1) or of rule 169 has or has not taken place. To accept that argument would be to import into rule 183(1) words which the maker of the rules never intended to be there. The sub-rule makes no distinction between a police report and a report made by some other public servant. The rule applies equally to all reports on the basis of which the magistrate may take cognizance of contravention of any of the Rules. 10. Since the facts stated in the charge-sheet do not constitute a contravention of rule 69(1) or rule 169 the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order is hereby quashed. The petitioner discharged from his bail bond. Application allowed.