AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 208 wordsM.M. Punchhi, J.
The petitioner has been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.7.1984 (Annexure P3) to stand time for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The order reads as under :
"Complaint presented today. It be registered, accused and surety be summoned for 31.8.84."
The summoning order does not reveal the application of mind of the learned Magistrate, so as to come to the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the case. The order is violative of the mandate and spirit of section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well settled by judicial authority that the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 has at that stage to apply his judicial mind to the case and arrive at the conclusion whether there are adequate grounds for proceeding and those grounds should ex facie appear in the order. Patently the impugned order does not satisfy this test. Accordingly it is quashed. It is, however, left open to the learned Magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the complaint in accordance with law to further the cause of justice.
This petition is accordingly allowed to the extent aforeindicated.