Honble MITAL, J. – The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is prayed that Public Analyst, Jodhpur, who submitted the report date 4.9.1993 may be directed to be summoned by the Court as witness and petitioners may be given opportunity to cross-examine him. Alternatively it has been prayed that if the witness is not examined then an adverse inference envisaged under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act should be drawn against the prosecution. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the public analyst is a material witness who has given the report that the sample taken from the petitioner was found adulterated or did not confirm the prescribed standard. It is argued that it is necessary to crossexamine the witness about the test conducted by him and some other important matters about testing of the sample. The petitioner filed an application under section 293 sub section 2 Cr.P.C. to call the public analyst to examine him as a witness but the application has been rejected by the impugned /order saying that the public analyst can not be allowed to be cross-examined when the prosecution does not want to examine him as witness. It has been observed in the impugned order that the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine any witness and defence can examine public analyst as defence witness. (3) Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order that the prosecution could not be compelled to cross examine public analyst Prosecution witness and the accused is free to call the Public analyst as defence witness. (4) I have considered the argruments advanced by both the parties. Section 293 sub section 2/ of Cr.P.C. provides that if the court think fit it can summon and examine any such expert with respect to the subject matter of his report. Therefore, when application is filed under section 293 sub section 2 Cr.P.C. then the court should apply its mind on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the chemical analyst report that whether it thinks fit to call the public analyst as a witness and examine him about his report. The learned trial court has not given reasons as to whether it thinks it proper or not to summon and examine the public analyst as witness. The learned trial court has not given reasons as to whether it thinks it proper or not to summon and examine the public analyst as witness. The powers have been conferred on the court to summon the public analyst as witness under section 293 sub section 2 Cr.P.C.. It is true that the prosecution cannot be compelled to produce public analyst as a witness but he can be summoned as witness under section 293 sub section 2 of Cr.P.C.by the court. Even if, accused has a right to examine the public analyst as defence witness, the accused can also submit an application under section 293(2) Cr. P.C. to get the public analyst examined under these provision by invoking power of the court even before the defence evidence commences. The appears to be little vague because the prayer has been made to cross examine the public analyst where as the appli- cation also application has been filed under section 293(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, I deem it proper to direct the learned trial court to consider the application afresh under the provisions of section 293(2) Cr.P.C. (5) In the result, the petition is accepted with the direction that the petitioner shall filed his application afresh and learned trial court will hear and decide it in accordance with law. u/s 293(2) Cr. P.C.. With the aforesaid observations, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of.