S.P. Sinha J. This application is directed against the order dated 9.8.1972 passed in Trial No.1365/72 by Shri B.N Singh, Munsif Magistrate 1st class, Muzaffarpur, taking cognizance of offence under sections 149, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. The short ground on which this order is assailed is that the police report which has formed the basis for taking cognizance does not contain any statement of such facts which may constitute any such offences for which cognizance has been taken. It is submitted that under those circumstances there was no basis for taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners and so the order be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has drawn my attention to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which a police report will not only contain the nature of information as contained in the said report, but will also be accompanied with all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely, other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation. The Police report will also be accompanied by statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the state, therefore, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, will not only look into the nature of information stated in the report of the Police officer but will also look into accompaning documents and if on looking to those an offence is made out, cognizance will be taken. 4. The argument on behalf of the state would have been valid if it had concerned a case to which the New code, namely, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 would apply. The case with which I am seized is, however, one which has to be considered in terms of the old code, namely, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which there is no provisions parallel to section 173(5) of the New Code. I, therefore, think that the argument made on behalf of the state is not relevant for the purposes of the instant case. 5. Now coming to the case in question the relevant facts are that a case of assault was lodged against the petitioners at Muzaffarpur Town P.S. on the 17th August. I, therefore, think that the argument made on behalf of the state is not relevant for the purposes of the instant case. 5. Now coming to the case in question the relevant facts are that a case of assault was lodged against the petitioners at Muzaffarpur Town P.S. on the 17th August. 1971 at 8.15 A.M. The police after investigation submitted its report dated 23.1.1972 to the sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In the report the facts stated are only this much: "On 17.8.71 the case was registered under section 326/307 I.P.C. on basis of Fard Beyan recorded by me against accused no. 1. On investigation the accused persons noted in col. 4 from serial no. 2 to 6 came to light and a prima facie case was proved against all the accused persons noted in col. 4 from serial 1 to 6. Hence this C. S. against all 6 noted in co. 4 for trial in the court is submitted under section 149/326/307 I.P.C.” It is on the basis of such information in the Police report that the impugned order has been passed taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. 6. Not only in terms of section 173 but also in terms of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the report of the police officer must contain the nature of the information and statement of such facts as make out the offence for which cognizance is to be taken. As a matter of fact even the form prescribed for submission of chargesheet requires the police officer concerned to fill in column no. 7 of the chargesheet, stating: "Charge of or information: Name of offences with section and circumstances connected with it, in concised detail and under what section of law charge". Thus not only the Criminal Procedure Code but also the form draw the attention of the police-officer to give such information of facts on the basis of which cognizance will be taken of offence committed by an accused. It is imperative therefore, that the police -report must contain statement of such facts as make out an offence for which cognizance can be taken. Now in the instant case the report of the police-officer, which I have quoted above, does not contain any such facts from which one could infer that the petitioners should be charged with any offence. 7. Now in the instant case the report of the police-officer, which I have quoted above, does not contain any such facts from which one could infer that the petitioners should be charged with any offence. 7. Naturally, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in saying that the cognizance taken against the petitioners under order dated 9.8.1972 was unwarranted and illegal because there was no basis for taking cognizance of any offence. Under the old code it is only the statement of facts contained in the charge sheet which forms the basis for taking cognizance on a Police report and if there is no statement of fact in the charge sheet, the offence for which cognizance has been taken, will be without basis and, therefore, unwarranted and illegal. A decision of this court in Jeewan Agrawala vs. State of Bihar has dilated on this question and has come to the same conclusion which I have arrived, namely, that if the charge sheet does not contain the statements of facts constituting the offence, the cognizance of offence or offences will be without any basis. 8. In view of the discussion, as above, I have no alternative but to set aside the impugned order dated 9th August, 1972. Application allowed.