1. The two petitioners herein were the accused in a petty case for offence under S.51 (A) of the Kerala Police Act (for short 'the Act'). When they pleaded guilty, they would never have realised that an important legal question would sprout from their case. Nor did the Magistrate who passed a flee-bite sentence on them (a fine of Rs. 50/ each) think that the initiative step taken by him in the case would ever be exposed to a criticism that the said step has no support of law. Sri K. A. Jaleel, counsel for the petitioners, confessed at the outset that the offence indicted does not possess that gravity which deserves the matter being brought to this Court, but what prompted him to bring it here is his firm opinion that the question involved is of some topical importance.

2. Facts are simple: On 19-3-1983 the petitioners were produced before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (II), Ernakulam, by the Harbour Crime Branch Police together with a report of the Sub Inspector that the petitioners were found drunk and behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place on the previous day and hence they committed the offence under S.51 (A) of the Act. The learned Magistrate straightaway numbered the case as S. T. 217/83. As the petitioners were present in court, the Magistrate straightaway numbered the case as S. T. 217/83. As the petitioners were present in court, the Magistrate recorded their plea of guilty. Accordingly, he convicted them and sentenced them.

3.The contention of the learned counsel is that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to ask the petitioners whether they plead guilty, without issuing summons to them first. The learned Public Prosecutor sought support for the aforesaid action of the learned Magistrate from S.251 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). That section is in Chap.20 of the Code which contains provisions for "Trial of Summons-Cases by Magistrate". S.51(A) of the Act makes the offence punishable with a fine of fifty rupees or imprisonment for a period of eight days. There is no dispute that the case involving the said offence is only a summons case. S.251 of the Code says that "when in a summons-case the accused appears or Is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty." According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the above provision empowers a Magistrate to ask the accused whether he pleads guilty when the accused "appears or is brought before the Magistrate." It is contended that appearance before the Magistrate includes physical presence of the accused and the words "brought before the Magistrate" include instances where the accused is brought by the police before the Magistrate, irrespective of whether it is in pursuance of a warrant of arrest.

4. It is not disputed that the offence under S.51 (A) of the Act is a non-cognizable offence (vide 3rd division in Part.2 of the First Schedule of the Code). No police officer can arrest a person involved in a non-cognizable offence without a warrant, unless it be a case where he refuses to give his name and residence as provided in S.42 of the Code. So the question of arrest and its follow-up need not be considered in this revision. Chap.14 of the Code is titled "Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings." The commencing section in the Chapter (S.190) enumerates the four sources of informations regarding commission of offences on which the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Either upon receiving a complaint, or upon a police report, or upon information received from any person or upon his own knowledge that an offence has been committed, the Judicial Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence. Chap.15 is the procedure for taking cognizance of offence on complaint. Chap.14 is so set in the Code as to indicate that any step or action of the Magistrate envisaged in the Co