1. Arguments heard.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:

1. That on 21.8.1991 one Food Inspector Shri B.S. Tomar, collected sample of iodized salt for analysis from. petitioner No.2. On being analyzed by the Public Analyst, it was found adulterated on the point that in place of 15 pm iodine there was only 9.81 pm iodine. On this ground the Food Inspector filed one complaint before CJM, Guna, presently which is pending at Criminal Case No. 458/92, against four accused persons (1) petitioner No.2 in the capacity of vendor (2) petitioner No.1 in the capacity of distributor and (3 & 4) respondents No.2 and 3 as manufacturer.

2. That despite several efforts made during the period of 10-12 years, the respondents No.3 and 4 could not be traced out. Then vide order dated 27.8.2004, the learned Magistrate declared respondents No.3 and 4 as absconded and framed charges against the petitioners on 14.10.2004 for the offence punishable under section 16(1A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. That, impugning the order dated 27.8.2004 and dated 14.10.2004 the present petitioners filed one Criminal Revision No. 255/04. During pen