JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The three Petitioners who are all practising Advocates of Parlakhemundi have filed this revision with a prayer to quash the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 353 of 1978 pending against them in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parlakhemundi. 2. A public meeting was held at Parlakhemundi on 25-12-1978 in the afternoon with Petitioner No. 3 Krushna Chandra Panigrahi in the Chair and in that meeting protests were made against the excesses committed by the police during the mobile Court operation. The meeting was held after obtaining permission from the authorities u/s 30 of the Police Act. According to the Petitioners a motivated F.I.R. was drawn up by the Officer-in-charge, Parlakhemundi Police Station on 29-12-1978, i.e. four days after the meeting, at 6.00 p.m. against the Petitioners and three others of Parlakhemundi, namely, an office bearer of the Chamber of Commerce, the President S.K.G. Students Union and a businessman alleging that they committed offences under Sections 124A/504 and 505, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the Petitioners addressed the public meeting and used words intending to create public disorder and disturbance of law and order with ulterior motive to insult the police and the Magistrate and to provoke people to commit breach of peace. In the first information report the O.I.C has mentioned: I registered this case as directed by authority and took up the investigation myself being the complainant. 3. During, investigation police recorded statements u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and statements of some persons were recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet u/s 143/504/505, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after perusal of the charge-sheet and the connected police papers held: I am well satisfied that a prima facie case u/s 143/504, Indian Penal Cede is made out against the accused persons in this case. These above offences come under summons procedure. Hence the accusation was read over and explained to the accused persons through R.L. (representing lawyer) to which they plead not guilty and claim for trial. Issue summons to the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 fixing 28-1-1980 for evidence. The learned Magistrate however did not take cognizance u/s 505, Indian Penal Code as no sanction from the Government had been obtained. Issue summons to the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 fixing 28-1-1980 for evidence. The learned Magistrate however did not take cognizance u/s 505, Indian Penal Code as no sanction from the Government had been obtained. Against the aforesaid order the Petitioners have come up in revision to quash the proceeding on the grounds that the cognizance taken is absolutely misconceived; that in the first information report there was no allegation u/s 143, Indian Penal Code and absolutely no specific allegations were made against the Petitioners of having committed an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code; that all the statements made in the F.I.R. were mere generalised statements; that Section 504, Indian Penal Code is wholly inapplicable since it only speaks of intentionally insulting or giving provocation to any person either intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the person to break public peace or commit any other offence; that the allegation that the Petitioners urged the people to boycott the mobile Court is not inciting people to commit an offence and admittedly there was no insult to any person much less to the informant and that too no such plea could be taken by the police to commit any breach of peace or commit any offence; that the informant was not at all present at the meeting and hence no case u/s 504, Indian Penal Code could be started at his instance; that so far as Section 143, Indian Penal Code is concerned, there are absolutely no ingredients of the same that there is no such allegation in the first information report and there was no question of an unlawful assembly since the meeting was held after obtaining permission from the police u/s 30 of the Police Act and absolutely there is no allegation of any criminal force having been used or shown; that the entire move of perpetrating a case against the Petitioners is only for ulterior and extraneous reasons as a belated after thought aimed at humiliating the Petitioners who are otherwise respectable persons of the locality; that it is evident from the very statement in the first information report that it was registered at the instance of the authorities after four days; that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and has mechanically came to the conclusion that a prima facie case u/s 143/504, Indian Penal Code has been made out and has issued summons to the Petitioners to stand their trial. 4. In this case four witnesses have been examined u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. The evidence of B. Koteswar Rao discloses. that there was a procession led by the three Petitioners. All were shouting "Parala Matire mobile Court band kara, police julum band kara". After moving in the streets, a public meeting was held at the bus-stand on 25-12-1978 at about 4.00 p.m. It was presided over by Petitioner No. 3. The meeting was addressed by the other two Petitioners and some others. All of them stated that the police was taking money during mobile Court and not submitting case against the persons paying money. The innocent persons who were unable to give bribe to the police were dragged before the Court. They suggested that nobody would pay the fine amount if imposed and if any body would be arrested, entire public would go to the police-station. P. Venu Gopal Rao stated that slogans such as Paralare mobile Court karai debu nahi, Police julam band heu were given in the procassion. Bhaskar Pattnaik stated that the people in the procession were shouting, "Paralare mobile Court band kara, police julam band kara, camp courtre paisa bandhibaku kahile bandhanahi". In the meeting, advocate Ramgopal stated "Police jaun loot kari paisa neuchhanti taha band karibaku padiba". Gopal Krishna Adhikari has stated about the prorcession and nothing more. These witnesses were also examined, u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. On a perusal of the statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure it is seen that all have stated almost in the same manner. 5. In order to constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code it is to be proved: (i) that the accused insulted some persons; (ii) that he did so intentionally; (iii) that he thereby gave provocation to that person; and (iv) that he intended, or knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause that person to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence. The meeting was admittedly held by obtaining permission from the police. In the meeting protest was made about the police excesses and misappropriation of money realised by police in mobile Court. The evidence mentioned above, even if taken on its face value, does not constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. 6. The meeting was admittedly held by obtaining permission from the police. In the meeting protest was made about the police excesses and misappropriation of money realised by police in mobile Court. The evidence mentioned above, even if taken on its face value, does not constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. 6. It is next to be seen whether an offence u/s 143, Indian Penal Code has been committed by the Petitioners. Unlawful assembly has been defined in Section 141, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Standing Counsel argued that the fifth clause of Section 141, Indian Penal Code has application to this case. The fifth clause is quoted below: 141. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is- First- xx xx xx Second- xx xx xx Third- xx xx xx Fourth- xx xx xx Fifth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation: An assembly, which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. The evidence is that the Petitioners addressed the gathering stating that Paralare mobile Court karai debu nahi, police julam band heu, police jeu loot kari paise neuchhanti taha band karibaku padiba, camp courtre paisa bandhibaku kahile bandha nahi. But there is no evidence whatsoever that there was use of criminal force or show of criminal force in the meeting compelling any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. The Petitioners were merely protesting against the police excesses. There is no evidence that the meeting was not conducted in a peaceful manner. There is nothing in evidence that there was any disorder in the meeting. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioners that the citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to the limitation contained in Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing in evidence that there was any disorder in the meeting. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioners that the citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to the limitation contained in Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In England also the citizens have the right to freedom of speech or discussion, which means that any person may write or say what he pleases, so long as he does not infringe the law relating to libel or slander or to blasphemous, obscene or seditious words or writings. A demonstration is a visible manifestation of the feelings or sentiments of an individual or a group. It is thus a communication of one's idea to others to whom it is intended to be conveyed. There are forms of demonstration which would fall within the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). A violent and disorderly demonstration would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b). But peaceful and orderly demonstration would fall within the freedoms guaranteed under these clauses. 8. There is nothing in the evidence to show that there was violation of Section 143 or 504, Indian Penal Code by the Petitioners. It may be that the action of the Petitioners may come under the purview of Section 505, Indian Penal Code, but I do not want to express any opinion regarding this. The Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence u/s 505, Indian Penal Code on the ground that no sanction of the Government is there. 9. On a careful consideration of the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure and the F.I.R. I am of the view that no case under Sections 143/504, Indian Penal Code has been made out against the Petitioners. So the cognizance taken by the Magistrate against the three Petitioners of offences under Sections 143/504, Indian Penal Code is quashed. It is, however, made clear that the concerned authorities are free to proceed against the Petitioners according to law notwithstanding the quashing of the cognizance taken of offences under Sections 143 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate is also free to proceed against the Petitioners u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, if the situation so warrants.