Prafulla C. Pant, J.— Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.03.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/2nd Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2009, whereby said court has affirmed the decision of the trial court to frame charge against the petitioners in respect of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in Criminal Case No. 1656 of 2001, Food Inspector Nagar Nigam Vs. Vishwamitra Rekhi and others, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the Officers of M/s National Dairy Development Board, and they had no criminal intention in the matter. M/s National Dairy Development Board was simply a packaging and marketing authorized agent of the product “DHARA” mustard oil, which was sold through various outlets in India. It is further submitted that PW-1 Sheoraj Singh Yadav, Food Inspector has himself stated in the statement under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., that he was told about the sample taken that it was not meant for sale. In this connection, attention of this Court is also drawn to the annexure No. 5 to the petition, which is the copy of Form VI issued by the Food Inspector at the time of taking the sample. In the said document also it is mentioned that the product was restrained from being sold by the M/s Natitional Dairy Development Board. 4) However, it is not only the ‘sale’ but also the ‘storage’ and ‘distribution’ of adulterated food item in respect of which, section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, gets attracted. It is clear from the annexure No.7 to the petition that on analysis, the purchased sample of “DHARA” was found adulterated as it found containing argemone. Large quantity of such an item lying in various outlets cannot be said to be that it was not meant for sale. The plea of the petitioners that they had already issued advertisement and requested the retailers to return packs of “DHARA” and not to sell them is a factual plea of defence, which cannot be examined at the time of framing of charge. 5) The trial is pending since year 1998, and yet lying at the stage of framing of the charge. 5) The trial is pending since year 1998, and yet lying at the stage of framing of the charge. Interference with the trial at this stage, after about thirteen years would be against the spirit of speedy trial of the case. 6) In the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. 7) Therefore, without expressing any opinion, as to the final merits of the case pending before the trial court, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily with the observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the factual pleas of their defence before the trial court that the product purchased by the Food Inspector, was not actually meant for sale, and they were innocent. _