1. In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 446 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station seeks to quash the proceedings before the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (ACJM for short), Ernakulam, on the ground that the said proceedings have been commenced pursuant to Annexure - A1 notice issued by the Sub Inspector without any authority.

2. The interesting questions which arise for judicial resolution in this case are :

a) What is a "petty offence" ? ?

b) Is the Officer- in-charge of a police station entitled to summon an accused person to a criminal court to answer a charge against him in a case treated as a petty case ?

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The facts leading to the filing of this petition can be summarised as follows:-

The petitioner aged 42 years and residing at Maradu near Vyttila, Ernakulam claims to be the sole breadwinner of his family. He is running a small shop near Maradu junction where he is doing repair of electronic goods. In the night of 23-2-2010 after closing his shop the petitioner was rushing home on his scooter bearing Reg. No. KL 39-7203 along the Kundannur-Petta road. The time was 10.20 in the night. The Sub Inspector of Police, Panangad was conducting a routine check of vehicles near Maradu junction. It was after passing through the above checking site that the petitioner reached home. According to the petitioner after an hour of his reaching home the police came there and took him into custody. But according to the Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner who came on his scooter in a rash and negligent manner after consuming alcohol did not stop the two-wheeler when the A.S.I. signalled him to stop and since the petitioner drove away the vehicle disregarding and disobeying the directions of the A.S.I and, he was taken into custody. It is the case of the petitioner that eventhough he pleaded that he was innocent and he had not consumed alcohol, his entreaties fell on deaf ears and he was taken to the police station and a case registered against him as Crime No. 446 of 2010. He was, thereafter, released on bail with two sureties. The petitioner was served with Annexure -A1 notice calling upon him to appear before the Court of the ACJM at 11 a.m. on 10-5-2010. The F.I.R. which was despatched to the Magistrate reached the Court of the ACJM , Ernakulam on 25-3-2010. Subsequently, the S.I. Panangad sent a report to the ACJM to the effect that the allegation in the F.I.R. that the accused had consumed alcohol was mistakenly incorporated in the F.I.R. On 24-6-2010 the Sub Inspector filed a charge-sheet before the ACJM against the accused alleging offences under ("the M.V. Act" for short) . Along with the charge, the Sub Inspector produced the served copy of Annexure A1 notice issued to the accused. A report was also submitted along with the charge to the effect that eventhough the Sub Inspector had issued a notice to the accused to appear before Court on 10-5- 2010, due to certain urgent duties he could not file the charge-sheet in time. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as S.T. 5622 of 2010 for the aforementioned offences and has posted the case to 26-7-2010 for the appearance of the accused. It was in the meanwhile that the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Public Prosecutor.

5. Since this Court was prima facie of the view that the Sub Inspector had absolutely no authority to summon an accused person to the Magistrate's Court, the Sub Inspector was directed to appear before this Court to reveal his authority, if any, to issue such a notice. The Sub Inspector appeared and placed reliance upon a Circular issued by the Police Department as Circular No. 11/1972 to justify his action: -

JUDICIAL RATIOCINATION

6. Annexure A1 notice in vernacular Malayalam and its English translation are as follows:- NOTICE

To, Age 42/10 S/o. , (H), 23-3-2010 10.20P.M.