JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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.

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, stating :-

"2. The 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."

5. By an order dated 30th April, 2007 a limited notice was issued. It reads :-

" Issue 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."

6. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would urge that the High Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by appellants under Section 482 of the Code without entering into the merit of the matter. It was urged that reliance placed by the High Court on its earlier judgment in V.K. Jain and others v. Pratap V. Padode and another, [2005 (30) Mh.L.J. 778] rendered by the learned Single Judge of that Court is contrary to various other decisions of the same Court inter alia in Vishwanaath Ramkrishna Patil and another v. Ashok Murlidhar Sonar and another, [ 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 671 ] and Keki Bomi Dadiseth and others v. State of Maharashtra, [ 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 246].

7. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that having regard to the conduct of appellants, this Court should not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the power under Section 482 of the Code should not be used mechanically or routinely.

8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitut