N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 115 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Kannur. The 2nd accused is the firm represented by the 1st accused. The first accused is also the nominee of that firm. Offence alleged is under Sec. 16(1)a (i) read with Sec. 2 (ia) (m) and Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("P.F.A. Act" for short).

2. The allegation is that A1 was conducting sale of food article. After serving Form VI notice, P.W.1 purchased 600 ml. of pickle from out of a vessel containing 15 litres. It was stated to have been stirred and homogenized. The procedural formalities were complied with in regard to the purchase, packing, sampling, labelling etc. as provided under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act and Rules. As per Form III report issued by the Public Analyst it was certified that the sample of pickle did not conform to the standard prescribed for pickle as per item No. A.16.16 of Appendix B of PFA Rules, 1955 and thus adulterated.

3. The petitioners allege that the prosecution initiated against them was mainly on the ground that the pickle sold to P.W.1 was 'pickle in oil' but in fact only 'pickle'