JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition by Gheesa s/o Jawara is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 19-7-77 affirming the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Beawar under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Beawar by his judgment dated 3-12-1976. 2. The prosecution case ts disclosed at the trial is that on 14-4-1974 at 8 a.m. P.W. 1 Chiman Singh, Food Inspector found the accused carrying milk for sale in a container. He suspected the milk to be adulterated and as such after giving due notice purchased 660 milli litres of milk. The milk was divided in three equal portions and each portion was filled in three clean and dry bottles. The requisite quantity of formalin was added and the bottles were sealed in the presence of the accused and the Motbirs. One of the bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Ajmer for analysis. The other was given to the accused and the third one was kept in the Municipal Council. The sample of milk was found to be adulterated as the Public Analyst found that it contained 31% of added water. After obtaining necessary sanction a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Beawar on 11-5-74. 3. The prosecution examined three witnesses in support of their case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and examined one witness in defence. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. An appeal was filed against the order of his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge which met with no success. Hence this revision petition. 4. As this case can be decided on the preliminary point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, I need not enumerate all the facts and circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution. 5. Hence this revision petition. 4. As this case can be decided on the preliminary point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, I need not enumerate all the facts and circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution. 5. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution evidence in this case in the trial court was closed on 5-8-76 and on the same day the accused petitioner submitted an application for summoning the Public Analyst for cross-examination but the learned Magistrate dismissed the same on the grounds (i) that the application filed by the petitioner was a delayed one, (ii) that he wanted to place unnecessary material on record and, (iii) that the application was submitted to delay the proceedings. 6. The evidence in this case was closed by the prosecution on 5-8-76. On the same day the accused submitted an application for summoning the Public Analyst and as such in these circumstances it cannot be said that the application was a delayed one. The learned counsel for the State finding it difficult to support the reasoning of the trial court for rejection of the application, urged that the dismissal of the application has not prejudicially attested the defence of the accused. It was open to the applicant to call the witness as defence witness or he could have utilised the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act or could have prayed for summoning the witness as court witness. As the petitioner failed to pursue the matter further in the manner suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the State, it should be held that the order of the trial court need not be set aside. 7. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the State. The Legislature in its wisdom has not made the report of the Public Analyst conclusive. Only formal proof has been dispensed with. . It is a prima facie evidence against the accused and he can rebut the presumption. It was open to him to summon the Public Analyst and cross-examine him. The Legislature in its wisdom has not made the report of the Public Analyst conclusive. Only formal proof has been dispensed with. . It is a prima facie evidence against the accused and he can rebut the presumption. It was open to him to summon the Public Analyst and cross-examine him. No doubt Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act has given a right both to the accused as well as the complainant, on payment of the prescribed fee, to apply to the court after the prosecution has been instituted to send part of the sample preserved as required under Sub clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate and the court is bound to send it under its seal to the said Director who has to submit a report within one month from the date of the receipt of the same. The certificate under sub-section ^3) supersedes the Public Analyst's certificate and is conclusive and final under Sub-section (5). But nothing contained in those sub-sections relating to certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory in any way limits the right of the accused under Section 243 of the Cr. P.C. 1973. The court while rejecting the prayer is required to apply its mind keeping in view all the particular facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the application dated 5-8-76 shows that the accused petitioner gave certain grounds for summoning the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the application has not taken into consideration those grounds. He has simply repeated the language of Section 243 for rejecting the application of the accused petitioner. The accused was facing trial at Beawar and the Public Analyst has his office at Ajmer which is a distance of about 30 miles. The summoning of the Public Analyst in such circumstances cannot be said to be for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. Thus the accused has been deprived of his valuable right and he h+s been prejudiced in his defence. 8. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by both the courts below are set aside. Thus the accused has been deprived of his valuable right and he h+s been prejudiced in his defence. 8. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by both the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer for giving an opportunity to the accused petitioner to cross-examine the Public Analyst thereafter to decide the case afresh according to law. It will be open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the case himself or to send it for trial to some other Magistrate. The parties are directed to present themselves before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer on 1-10-1977. The petitioner is further directed to submit bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 3000/- to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer. The accused is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Case remanded. *******