B. K. RATHI, J. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29-9-1984 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, by which the applicant has been summoned to stand trial for offence under Section 7/16, P. F. A. Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. The sample of mustard oil was taken from K. K. Gupta of Pithoragarh on 28-12-1983. On analysis, it was found to be adulterated. It was informed that the ap plicant is the manufacturer of the said mustard oil and therefore, the complaint was also filed against the applicant by the Food Inspector. On that complaint the impugned order of summoning the ap plicant was passed. 4. I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. 5. It is contended by the learned coun sel for the applicant that the applicant could not have been summoned on the basis of the complaint. That the applicant could have been summoned under Section 20-A of the P. F. A. Act on proof by the dealer that the oil was manufactured by the applicant. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant in support of the argument has referred to the decision of M/s Parumal Keomal Oil and Floor Mill Gangapur, Bareilly v. State of U. P and another, 1998 JIC 470 . Para 3 of the judgment which is material is extracted below: "learned counsel for the accused-revisionist has drawn ray attention to the provisions of Section 14-A, Section 19 and Section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On consideration of these provisions it is clear that the stage of summoning the manufac turer will arise on proof having been furnished by the vendor as required under Section 19 (2) of the Act and that during the trial of the offence under the Act alleged to have been committed by the vendor on being satisfied from the evidence ad duced before it that the manufacturer is also con cerned with the said offence, the Court may proceed against the manufacturer as though a prosecution had been launched against it under Section 20 of the Act. That stage is yet to come. " 7. That stage is yet to come. " 7. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of this Court in M/s Chet Ram Parumal Oil Mill v. State of UP and another, 1999 (38) A. C. C. 938; 1999 (2) JIC 168 (All ). Similar view was taken in the present case. 8. The facts of the present case are identical. The applicant could have been summoned by the Court under Section 20-A of PEA. Act. The summoning order on the basis of the complaint is therefore, fit to be quashed. 9. The revision is allowed and the im pugned order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh dated 29-9- 1984 is quashed. However, it is made clear that during trial if at any stage the evidence is brought on the record that the applicant is manufacturer of the mustard oil of which sample was taken he may be summoned to stand trial not withstanding any observation made in this judgment. Revision allowed. .