Case: Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd Vs. State Of Maharashtra

3. First Appellant is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Gutkha. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Chairman and Managing Director of the company. It is said to be a large organization. It has multi-locational manufacturing units and each of them is said to be headed by senior officials of the company, who were responsible for the conduct of its business. Inter alia on the premise that the samples collected from the manufacturing unit of appellants at Solapur were found to be adulterated in terms of Rule 62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short `1955 Rules) providing for restriction on the use of anti-caking agents, a criminal complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Akkalkot, Solapur. Cognizance was taken thereof and summons were issued to the appellants.4. They filed an application under Section 482 of the Code, which by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 21st December, 2006 has been dismissed, statingThe jurisdiction under section 482 of the said Code has to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. As held by this Court in the case of V.K. Jain and others (Supra) the jurisdiction under section 482 of the said Code will not be exercised if recourse can be taken by the Applicants to the remedy of filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of the said Code. In this view of the matter, the Application is rejected. Notwithstanding the rejection of this Application, it will be open for the Applicants to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court. All contentions on merits are kept open.By an order dated 30th April, 2007 a limited notice was issued. It readsIssue notice limited to the question as to whether the matter should be directed to be considered afresh by the High Court keeping in view the fact that other matters wherein similar contentions have been raised are pending before the High Court.Dasti service, in addition is permitted. Liberty to mention after service is complete."

Reasoning: Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of those cases, the learned Judge has observed in V.K. Jain and Saket Gore (supra) that it would be appropriate for the parties to file revision application against the order of issuance of process. There is nothing mentioned and/or even observed that there is total bar to file petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and/or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.In our considered opinion V.K. Jain (supra) does not lay down a good law. It is over-ruled accordingly.