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, stating The jurisdiction under section 482 of the said Code has to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Appellant Nos.
Cognizance was taken thereof and summons were issued to the appellants.
2 and 3 are the Chairman and Managing Director of the companypany.
By an order dated 30th April, 2007 a limited numberice was issued.
It has multi locational manufacturing units and each of them is said to be headed by senior officials of the companypany, who were responsible for the companyduct of its business.
It is said to be a large organization.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Inter alia on the premise that the samples companylected 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 companyplaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Akkalkot, Solapur.
Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short the Code can be dismissed only on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Code is available, is the question involved herein.
First Appellant is a companypany incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Gutkha.
