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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document