Judgment This is a petition filed by 44 petitioners who are counter petitioners in M.C.No.3 of 1987 on the file of the Executive Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathur, North Arcot District on the information furnished by the Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Ambur, the Executive Sub-Divisional Magistrate has initiated proceedings under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.3 of 1987 against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are said to be workers in Akbar Leather Factory at Ambur, North Arcot District Among the petitioners, petitioners 1 to 3 are said to be the office-bearers of Leather and Leather Goods Democratic Labour Union and according about 11.30 A.M. the counter petitioners 1 to 44, the active member of the said Union joined together in front of the said Akbar Leather Factory, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object to violate the order passed by the public servant, prevent that public servant from discharging his duties and violated the orders under section 30(2) of the Police Act passed by the Public Servant by preventing the ordinary public from discharging their daily work. A case was registered in Crl. No.358 of 1987 under sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 7(i) (a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the same is being investigated. Besides that occurrence, in the notice issued, mention has been made about the occurrence that took place on 4.10.1987,22.10.1987 and 23.10.1987. It is to be pointed out that in the occurrence that is alleged to have taken place on 4.10.1987, the petitioners 6 to 8 and in the occurrence that is alleged to have taken place on 22.10.1987 petitioners 4 to 7, 9, 38 and 42 and in the occurrence that allegedly took place on 23rd October, 1987 petitioners 4 and 5 are shown to have participated. As regards the occurrence that is alleged to have taken place on 25.10.1987, petitioners 10 to 44 are shown to have joined together. 3. As regards the occurrence that is alleged to have taken place on 25.10.1987, petitioners 10 to 44 are shown to have joined together. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in the information laid as against the counter petitioners who are petitioners in this Court, there is nothing against petitioners 1 to 3 and even with regard to the last incident that is alleged to have taken place on 25.10.1987 it is not correct say that petitioners Nos.38 and 42 were participants and with regard to the alleged incidents on the other three dates, not all of them have participated and in such circumstances, it was contended that there had been no proper application of mind by the learned Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate in passing the order and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Jayavelu and 22 others v. Inspector of Police, Comachikulam Circle, Madurai District, 1988 L.W.Crl. 38 (S.N.). It is a decision rendered by Padmini Jesudurai, J. wherein the learned Judge has pointed out that the proceeding contemplated under S.116(3) of the Crl. P.C. indicates that the question of interim bond would arise only after counter petitioners have appeared before the Executive Magistrate has commenced the enquiry. The learned Judge has also pointed out that even for requiring an interim bond, the Executive Magistrate has to record his reasons. It is to be pointed out that in an earlier decision in K.V. Shanmugam v. State (Inspector of Police), 1978 L.W.Crl. l50, Natarajan, J, has also pointed out that S.107 of Crl. P.C. lays down that when information is laid and the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings, he may require the persons so show cause, etc., etc. There has, therefore, to be necessarily an objective assessment of the truth and urgency of the information laid before a show cause order can be issued to a person affected by the information. To a similar effect, Mahaeswaran, J. has also laid in Thirumalaiappa Gounder alias C. Chinnaswamy and others, In re, 1981 L.W.Crl.106. 4. There has, therefore, to be necessarily an objective assessment of the truth and urgency of the information laid before a show cause order can be issued to a person affected by the information. To a similar effect, Mahaeswaran, J. has also laid in Thirumalaiappa Gounder alias C. Chinnaswamy and others, In re, 1981 L.W.Crl.106. 4. It is to be pointed out, as stated earlier, though in the notice mention has been made about the occurrence that took place on 25.10.1987, it has not been made clear as to who was the public servant who passed die order under S.30 of the Police Act, and in what way the same was violated by the counter petitioners 10 to 44. A perusal of the order served on the counter petitioners clearly indicates that there had been no application of mind by the concerned learned Magistrate and in such circumstances, the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioners has to be accepted. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 1987, on the file of the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppathur, North Arcot District are quashed.