Judgment : As this revision involved a very narrow question of law to be decided instantaneously, on ordering notice of motion, I have had an occasion to hear the Bar for the respective parties challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in C.C. No. 192 of 1996 on 17. 1996 which is extracted as under: “Taken on file under Secs. 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 506(2), I.P.C. Post on 8. 1996. Issue N.B.W. Prepare copies”. 2. Since the matrix of the matter does not given an occasion to elaborate the factual aspects of the prosecution, I have not adverted to the same for any purpose in this order. Enough for me at this stage to mention that the revision petitioner along with 40 others is alleged to have trespassed into the leasehold place of M/s.Vetrivel Minerals on 25. 1995 at 14.00 hours and threatened the witnesses 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were under the employment at the time and other workers in abusive language and also threatened to murder them. Upon the said substratum of the allegations, a final report, as evident from the certified copy of the same produced today by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.N. Natarajan, appears to have been filed before the court below on 17. 1996 wherein nine witnesses have been cited, upon the basis of which the cognizance of the offences under the relevant provisions of law has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate as above referred to after a lapse of six days. It is, the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17. 1996 which is being challenged by the learned Senior Counsel for want of its legality and propriety. 3. As noted above, I had the privilege of hearing both the sides and as a part of its, learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. Natarajan for and on behalf of the petitioner would dwell his first attack by stating that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17. 3. As noted above, I had the privilege of hearing both the sides and as a part of its, learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. Natarajan for and on behalf of the petitioner would dwell his first attack by stating that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17. 1996 seems to be arbitrary and resultant of not applying his mind while ordering issuance of process either by way of summons or warrant and the procedural guidance provided in the statue, more particularly under Secs.204 and 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed which would cause unnecessary harassment to the revision petitioner herein, by way of arrest at the hands of the police unnecessarily pursuant to the impugned order, if the non-bailable warrant is executed. To appreciate the above contention, it has become relevant for me to advert to Sec.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is clearly indicative of the circumstances under which the order for the issuance of the processes is warranted. Sec.204 of the Code runs like thus: “(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be. .(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. .(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under Sub-sec.(l) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. .(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under Sub-sec.(l) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. .(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. .(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. .(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Sec.87.” Sec.87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs like thus: “A court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest- .(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the court sees reasons to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or .(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure”. .4. A casual and combined reading of the above sections of Law would reveal that after arriving at or identifying the cognizance of offences on the sufficiency of the grounds found in the final report or otherwise in a complaint instituted by a party, the mode of issuing the process has been provided under the earlier section subject to certain limitations and the ingredients to be fulfilled, as spelt out in Sub-secs.(2), (3) and (4) of Sec.204. But, it is obvious and indicative to note that the above mode of process to be issued would not in any way abdicate or override the mode of proper spelt out in the latter section. In other words, to say, the legislature has provided necessary basic ingredients to be exercised by the court of law before issuing the process either in the name of summons or warrant or both by recording sufficient reasons therefor and said reasons must obviously and specifically be in writing. The basic ingredient means to have been emphasised in Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.87 of the Code. The basic ingredient means to have been emphasised in Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.87 of the Code. The reasons for such mandate is that there may be offences which may be tried after issuance of the process by way of summons or warrant and in cases where there are various offences involving warrant as well as summons procedure, the fact must not be overlooked that before issuing the summons or warrant, the court must give reasons for doing so on identifying the nature of offences and categoring the same in accordance with the chronological order of Indian Penal law. In the light of the above ratio seems to be performed necessary by a court of law while issuing process by way of summons or warrant, the reasoning must be given especially in writing or otherwise, it amounts not only to an irregularity, but also deprivation of the fundamental rights enshrined to every citizen which is being challenged under a non-bailable warrant issued without any reasoning. 5. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the instant case, it is evidently seen that on receipt of the final on 17. 1996, the learned Magistrate appears to have taken cognizance of the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 447, 294(b) and 506(11), Indian Penal Code and of these five charges, the first four are the offences triable by issuing process by way of summons and the rest viz., Sec.506(11), Indian Penal Code alone attracts the procedure provided for issuing the warrant. A bare look on the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reveals no ground to sustain the same and as such I am of the considered view that it lacks every legality and propriety and all the more to say, it is a non-speaking one that has been passed without any reasoning therefore warranting indulgence of this Court to interfere. .6. However, since the Bar for the respective parties are not in dispute with regard to other area of the disputes, the ends of justice would require me, while I am inclined to admit this revisions and set aside the impugned order, to send back the whole matter to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor for disposal of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. Consequently, the petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to bind over him after getting necessary sureties and bound for his appearance in future till the disposal of the ease. The non-bailable warrant issued is ordered to be cancelled. 7. In the result, for all the reasonings given above, the revision succeeds and it is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 192 of 1996 on 17. 1996 is hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law, as indicated above.