Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.

2. Applicants are accused named in a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 in his official capacity as a Food Inspector.

3. The applicants are seeking quashing of order of issue of process.

4. The ground of challenge is that the complaint does not disclose commission of offence by accused Nos. 2 to 6.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Uday Dastane for the applicants at length.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicants has placed reliance on following two reported Judgments, namely :(a) Keki Bomi Dadiseth and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 246, and (b) SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. VS. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. (SC) 731 = (2005) 8 see 89.

7. According to learned Advocate Mr. Dastane, the averment contained in paragraph No.3 spells out two things, namely :(i) That, accused No.1 was present and was selling the foodstuff which was adulterated, and (ii) Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are arrayed being partners of the Finn.

8. It is then urged that these averments do not adequately describe involvement of accused Nos. 2 to 5 as active partners of Finn -accused No.6.

9. According to learned Advocate Mr