JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Per Coram : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 513 of 2007 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) Rajveer Singh Vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. A further declaration has been sought that the Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. 1860 stand impliedly repealed by the Provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. It appears that the respondent no. 5 Rajveer Singh filed a criminal complaint against (1) Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage, (2) Quality Manager of the said company, (3) General Manager of the said company, (4) Coca-Cola Agency of Afjalgarh and (5) Rashid Ali, a shop keeper with the allegation that on 17.09.2006 he purchased 10 bottles of Fanta 200 ml., 5 bottles of Thums-up 200 ml., 5 bottles of Thums-up 300 ml. In Afjalgarh (District Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh) for a party in his house. Allegation of the complainant is that a rubber ring was found in a sealed bottle of Fanta and some pieces of plastic bag were found in the bottle of Limca. On the above Criminal complaint; it appears that the Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners in the complaint. The said order is under challenge before us. 4. Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case; we are of the view that it is open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order, whereby the petitioners have been summoned in the criminal complaint, by filling petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, seeking quashing of the proceedings, on the points raised in the present writ petition. 5. The Criminal Misc. Application 521 of 2007, which was already moved by one Manoj Goel, Quality Assurance Manager, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., appears to have been dismissed on 11.10.2007. However, in the said petition neither the question of territorial jurisdiction appears to have been examined nor the angle relating to applicability of Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. to the present case, as raised in this petition, was considered. 6. However, in the said petition neither the question of territorial jurisdiction appears to have been examined nor the angle relating to applicability of Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. to the present case, as raised in this petition, was considered. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued before us that the bottles were admittedly purchased in Afjalgarh, which is a town within the district of Bijnore, State of Uttar Pradesh and as such, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur had no territorial jurisdiction in respect of the matter. It is further pointed out that admittedly neither the product is manufactured nor sold in Uttarakhand. The argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners; requires consideration. 7. In view of the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindal 2004 A.I.R. SCW, page 5174 read with Ms. Pepsi Food Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate A.I.R. 1998 page 128, we hereby direct the Registry that this petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be treated as one moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same be listed before Appropriate Bench for admission and orders. 8. We think it just to observe here that the points raised in this petition, including the one relating to territorial jurisdiction and alleged inapplicability of Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. may be argued before and considered by the Bench hearing the matters u/s 482 Cr.P.C./under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.