A magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the material before him and ascertain not only that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further in the complaint but also the nature of the offence for which the accused need be summoned before issuing summons to the accused.

T. R. Handa, J.—The petitioner Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is manufacturing various products including Vanaspati Ghee (Rath Brand). Respondent No. 4 is the Managing Director of this Company. Respondent No. 3 is the distributor of this Company for its product Rath brand Vanaspati for Himachal Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 runs a provision shop at Simla and deals inter alia in Vanaspiti Ghee. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh and has been impleaded through the Government Food Inspector, Simla.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and the other three respondents under section 7 read with section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla. Shortly stated the allegations in the complaint are that the Food Inspector on 23-3-1979 purchased a sample of Vanaspati Ghee from respondent No. 2 for the purposes of analysis. The sample comprised of a sealed tin of 2 kg. capacity of Rath brand Vanaspati Ghee and it had been purchased and dealt with in the manner prescribed under the Act and the rules made there under. On being analysed by the Public Analyst, the sample was found adulterated on account of deficiency in vitamin contents.

3. It appears that on an enquiry made by the Food Inspector at the time of taking the sample under section 14-A of the Act, respondent No. 2 disclosed that he had purchased the Vanaspati Ghee out of which the sample had been taken from respondent No. 3 under a warranty. The Food Inspector accordingly while issuing a notice under section 12 in form VI to respondent No. 2, issued a similar notice to respondent No. 3 also.

4. After making the allegations as above against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the complainant summed up the case against the accused persons in the penultimate para of the complaint in the following terms : "As Ram Prakash accused kept the said Vanaspati in store and was selling the same for human consumption, M/s. Imperial Coal Company Simla being the sole distributor sold the said Vanaspati to the accused No, 1 and M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills under the management of its Managing Director manufactured and sold adulterated and misbranded Vanaspati which they sold to M/s. Imperial Coal Co. Simla, have committed an offence under section VII of the P. F. A. Act, 1954."

5. The complaint was presented by the Food Inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla on 31-7-1979 when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order : Presented to-day by Shri D. N. Kaushik Govt. F. L Office to check and report on 2-8-79. Sd/- C.J.M.” There is then the report of some Court official reading like this : "I have gone through the case file and found correct as per the list attached with this file by the Food Inspector. Submitted for order please. Sd/- 1-8-79” The Chief Judicial Magistrate then passed the following order on 2-8-79 ; “2-8-79.—Present F. I. Sh. D. N. Kaushik Report seen. Register Issue summonses to the accused for 20-9-79. Sd/- C. J. M.”

6. No further progress was made in the complaint as the service of respondent No. 3 had yet to be effected when the petitioner Company presented the present petition seeking to invoke the re visional/inherent jurisdiction of this Court under sections 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated against it and its Managing Director respondent No. 3 on the basis of the aforesaid complaint.

7. It would be obvious from a bare reading of the proceedings reproduced above that in passing his order dated 2-8-1979 summoning all the accused impleaded in the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, to say the least, acted in a most leisurely and irresponsible manner, not expected of a Judicial Officer of his status and experience. At no stage of time prior to the date of this order did he care even to have a look