ORAL JUDGMENT :- 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. Dastane, the contents of the complaint at hand are analogous to contents of complaint, which was subject matter in case of Keki Bomi Dadiseth and ors. VS. State of Maharashtra (supra). The relevant avennents are quoted in para 30 of the Judgment. Language of the portion quoted in para 30 is like the text of a charge. The averment, which is in the form of a charge in the present case is seen in paragraph 14, while the contents of para 3 are in the form of a pleading or averment. 10. Perused the complaint and in specific para 3 thereof in the light of the ground of challenge. It reveals from it that the contents of para 3 are divided into two sub-paras. 11. First sub-para of para No. 3 of the complaint describes specific imputations against accused No.1, while second sub-para of para 3 describes that accused Nos. 2 to 5 being partners of Finn of accused No.6, have stocked and have participated in the sale of adulterated foodstuff. 12. 11. First sub-para of para No. 3 of the complaint describes specific imputations against accused No.1, while second sub-para of para 3 describes that accused Nos. 2 to 5 being partners of Finn of accused No.6, have stocked and have participated in the sale of adulterated foodstuff. 12. Rules of pleading, even those as emerging from the dictum falling from contents of para 18 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SMS. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another (supra), can be read better by quotation, that : "18……A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a Director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of section 141. Even a non-director can be liable under section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial. " 13. Contents of second clause of para 3 of the complaint spell out that the accused Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners and are responsible for stocking and sale of adulterated foodstuff and, therefore, they have been arrayed as respondents responsible for stocking and selling adulterated foodstuff. 14. What is important is not the length and breadth of pleading, but the content. The substance conveyed through sub-para/second clause of para 3 of the complaint sufficiently spells out what the complainant attributes against the accused persons and what do they have to face in the trial. 15. It is an admitted fact that any particular partner was not nominated under section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to be one responsible for the business under the said statute. 15. It is an admitted fact that any particular partner was not nominated under section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to be one responsible for the business under the said statute. This aspect could have been the important limb of submission, had it been available on facts. 16. This Court is satisfied that by the narration contained in para 3 of the complaint, the accused applicants are adequately noticed of what they are being tried for. 17. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge contained in present application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Application dismissed.