D.P.Wadhwa, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated September 23, 1996 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissing their writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellants sought quashing of the complaint filed against them under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). The prayers in the writ petition were worded as under: "(a) issue a writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the Opposite Party Number-1 to proceed with Case No. 699 of 1994 (Anurag Narain v. Nitin Sachdeva and others); (b) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings in Case No. 699 of 1994 together with the consequential order dated 9-5-1994 and the complaint dated 6-5-1993 in so far as it pertains to the petitioners; (c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party Number-1 not to proceed with the Case No. 699 of 1994 during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition; (d) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and (e) to allow the writ petition with costs."
(3.) There are two appellants, second appellant is the Managing Director of first appellant. The respondents are three. First respondent is the court where the appellants along with others have been summoned for having committed offences under Ss. 7/16 of the Act. The second respondent is the complainant and the third respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh.;