Summoning order set aside where complaint lacked specific averments and evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence.

A summoning order cannot be sustained where the complaint and pre-summoning evidence disclose no specific act or omission by the petitioner. The court found no particularised averments, no material connecting the petitioner with the objectionable content, and no supporting evidence from the inquiry report to justify issuance of process. In the absence of such foundational facts, the requirement of judicial application of mind before summoning was not met. The summoning order, to the extent it applied to the petitioner, was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order could be sustained against the petitioner when the complaint contained no specific averments or supporting evidence attributable to the petitioner.

Analysis: The complaint and the pre-summoning evidence were examined to see whether they disclosed any act or omission by the petitioner. No specific allegation was made against the petitioner, no material was proved connecting the petitioner with the objectionable content, and the report obtained during inquiry did not establish any case against the petitioner. In the absence of particularised averments and supporting evidence, the requirement of judicial application of mind before issuing process was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The summoning order, insofar as it related to the petitioner, was unsustainable and was set aside.

---