ORDER Mohd. Hamid Hussain, J. - The ADM (J) Mathura has made this reference for setting aside the order dated 12-1-1972 of the Magistrate rejecting the application of the applicant Mishri Lal for summoning the Public Analyst for cross-examination. 2. Misri Lal was being prosecuted u/S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector had sent a sample of milk taken from the applicant for test to the Public Analyst who reported it to be adulterated and on the basis of this report, the applicant was being prosecuted. While the Food Inspector was being examined as a prosecution witness, the applicant applied for the Public Analyst to be summoned for cross-examination. This prayer of the applicant was rejected by the impugned order. The ADM (J) has recommended for setting aside of the said order on the ground that the magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provisions of S. 510 (2) and S. 257 Cr.P.C. 3. The Public Analyst can only be summoned u/S. 510(2) Cr.P.C. for cross-examination in respect of his report but not merely because the Food Inspector stated in cross-examination that it was for the Expert to say whether the contents of the sample of phial (Ex. 2 produced in court) had undergone any chemical change. The application dated 12-1-1972 for summoning the Public Analyst was in the following terms : "Sir, Submitted that due to non-addition of proper preservative chemical changes have taken place in milk sample contained in Ex. 11. Fats and non-fatty solids have decomposed and a lump of solids of fat and non-fatty solids have been framed, which is clearly visible in sample phial. P. W. 1 has said in cross-examination that only an expert can say whether chemical changes have taken place or not so as to render it affecting analysis. It is, therefore, prayed that court be pleased to note down the observation on condition of milk and Public Analyst be summoned for cross-examination u/S. 510 (2) and 257 of Cr.P.C. Till then further proceedings be stayed." On the margin of this application the impugned order of the magistrate dated 12-1-1972 is to the effect :- "Heard the counsel for the defence and the F. I. Apparently there seems no decomposition. I, therefore, find no necessity to call the analyst. I, therefore, find no necessity to call the analyst. I have also compared the sample with that of F. I's. Both the samples are more or less similar. The F.I. also argued that this plea has simply been taken to linger the case. Rejected." 4. A perusal of the above application would show that the request for summoning the Public Analyst was not made for challenging his report but only to solicit his opinion as an Expert as to whether any chemical changes had set in, in the sample of milk contained in the phial (Ex. 2) produced in court at the time of cross-examination of the Food Inspector. 5. U/S. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it was open to the applicant to have phial Ex. 2 containing sample of milk, sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for test, and certificate. The report of the Central Laboratory would have been final and superseded the report of the Public Analyst. 6. The Public Analyst could be summoned by the applicant for cross-examination in respect of the reports submitted by him. The Public Analyst could not be in a position, merely on seeing the phial (Ex. 2) in the court without testing its contents, to say that the sample of milk contained in the phial had undergone a change for want of proper quantity of preservative having been mixed with the sample of milk before sealing it in the phial (Ex. 2). In these circumstances the application dated 12-1-1972 was rightly rejected by the trial court at the stage when the Food Inspector was being cross-examined. 7. However, it may be clarified, that after the close of prosecution evidence and after the applicant has entered upon his defence, it will be open to the applicant to apply to the trial court for summoning u/S. 510 (2) Cr.P.C. the Public Analyst for cross-examination in respect of the subject-matter of his report filed in the court by the prosecution. 8. The trial court will proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution and the applicant Mishri Lal will be given an opportunity to conclude the cross-examination of the Food Inspector, Sri Brijendra Pal Jain (P.W. 1). 9. The reference is rejected.