S.D. Bajaj, J. - (1.) Sample of Haldi powder obtained by the Food Inspector R.D. Goyal from accused-petitioner on January 17, 1988, having been reported adulterated vide report Annexure P-2, prosecution against the petitioner was launched before the learned trial Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantonment, vide complaint Annexure P-1, wherein the learned trial Court made the order Annexure P-3, on February 23, 1988, Which reads:- "Present : Shri R.D. Goyal, Food Inspector for complainant. Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered. Accused be summoned for 8-3-1988. Sd/- J.M.I.X. 23-2-88." In Ajit Singh v. The State of Punjab 1984 - (2) FAC 199while examining the validity of similar summoning order it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Priptal Singh of this Court (as his Lordship then was), "The order dated September 13, 1984 of the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, summoning the petitioner in pursuance of the complaint indicates that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the order - The cryptic order passed by him is as follows : The "complaint be registered, keeping in view the multifarious official duties of the complainant, the personal appearance of the complainant is exempted till further orders as he is a Public servant and the complaint has been filed by the complainant in his official capacity. Now the accused be summoned for 11-10-1984". Evidently, no reason was given by the learned Magistrate in the order to summon the petitioner. It appears that the learned Magistrate considered himself duty-bound to summon the petitioner simply because the complaint had been filed by a public servant.'
(2.) In result, summoning order Annexure P-3 is quashed.
(3.) Engrossed with similar situation their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, 1975 (1) Food Adulteration Cases 186. The right is a valuable one because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein. These observations are fully attracted to the facts of the present case." The revision petition was accepted as it was held that prejudice had been caused to the accused in consequence of the direct result of the conduct of the prosecution. The above observations clearly apply to the present case.;