IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2040 OF 2008 Dr.Ravindra Sripal Kapale & Ors. .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.C.K.Pendse for the Applicants. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th July 2008. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants. The application made by the applicants under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The applicants carried the matter to the Sessions Court by way of a revision application. The Sessions Court partly allowed the revision application by setting aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the application for discharge. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reads thus:- ". Criminal Revision Application No.102 of : 2 : 2004 and Criminal Revision Application No.115 of 2004 are allowed and the order dated 02.08.2004 rejecting application Exh.55 of the accused persons is set aside. . The case is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri with a direction to strictly adhere to the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report starting with section 244 Cr.P.C. and when it comes to the stage of considering the evidence for the purposes of framing charge or ordering discharge of the accused, consider the application Exh.55 of the accused persons. . Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 10.09.2007. . Copy of this judgment be kept with the record and proceeding of Criminal Revision Application No.115 of 2004." 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing : 3 : for the applicants is that there is absolutely no material against the applicants and especially the applicant No.2 as regards any contravention of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He submitted that after calling for the record and keeping the revision application pending for a period of three years, the learned Sessions Judge could not have adopted the aforesaid approach. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, I find that no case is made out for exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the light of what has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. It is a settled law that the power under section 482 of the said Code is to be exercised sparingly and only in very rare cases. In view of the direction issued by the learned Sessions Judge, this application is not entertained and the same is rejected. However, all questions on merits of the case are expressly kept open. (A.S.Oka,J)