JUDGMENT R. S. Thakur, J.— This criminal petition is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jogindernagar, dated October 6 1987 whereby the petitioner M/s. Indian Spices Corporation, 656, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, was ordered to be arraigned as co-accused under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i)of the Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Shri P. S. Verma, Food Inspector, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H. P. on July 23, 1986, visited the shop of Naresh Kumar Sud at Chauntra in Tahsil Jogindernagar, where he was running a Karyana shop in the name and style of M/s. Narinder Kumar and Brothers and purchased Haldi powder Agmark A-l, weighing 450 gms. which was in sealed packets of 50 gms. each for the purpose of analysis. He purchased nine packets of 50 gms. each containing Agmark and prepared three samples with three packets each for the purpose of analysis, out of which he sent two packets to the local health authority and one to the Public Analyst. The sample to the Public Analyst was despatched on July 24, 1986 and the report of the Public Analyst dated September 3, 1986, revealed that the same was adulterated since it contained ash insoluable in dil Hcl in excess by 1.0% than the maximum prescribed limit and on receipt of this report the said Food Inspector filed complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, against the accused Naresh Kumar, who was duly summoned in the case by the court concerned. During the course of the proceedings, the said Naresh Kumar made an application that he had purchased the Haldi powder in question from the petitioner vide cash memo dated May 23, 1986, which was in sealed packets containing Agmark and he had sold out of that Haldi powder in the same packets, the sample of which was found to be adulterated and that in these circumstances, the petitioner-firm, was liable to be arraigned as co-accused in the case. He also produced the cash memo and transport receipt in this behalf. He also produced the cash memo and transport receipt in this behalf. The court then after recording the statement of the said Naresh Kumar in support of this application allowed the same vide the impugned order and ordered that the petitioner may also be impleaded as co-accused in the proceedings under section 20-A of the Act and ordered the issuance of summons to the petitioner and later on even non-bailable warrants, when ultimately the instant Cr. Misc. petition was filed and this Court at the request of the petitioner stayed the proceedings of the trial Court pending the decision of the petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the report of the Public Analyst the ash insoluable in the sample contained in excess by only 1.0%, which did not make out any offence since even according to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder 2% of grit is non-justiciable. There is no substance in this contention. Assuming that this ash insoluable found in the sampl e in question is grit as is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the same is obviously above the maximum prescribed standard, that is, in excess even of 2%. In any event in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this type of contention at this Stage when the record shows that he has grossly abused the process of the Court. For instance, the petitioner through its Manager or Proprietor was ordered to be summoned by the trial Court vide its order dated October 6, 1987 but the same remained unserved. Thereafter, during the proceedings, different types of processes, including the non-bailable warrants, were issued against the petitioner but every time they remained unserved with the report that the factory of the petitioner was closed and the whereabouts of its Manager or Proprietor were not known, which reports obviously were inspired and false at the instance of the petitioner as they wanted to evade the process of the Court and when they found that, ultimately the head of the trial Court was reaching them, they rushed to this Court with the instant petition and again got the trial of the case hung in the mid air. 4. The Cr. Misc. 4. The Cr. Misc. petition is, therefore, rejected on this short ground and the case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to the petitioner that all the Directors of Company shall attend the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar on February 21, 1989 and continue to attend the proceedings till the conclusion of the case and to that effect the Court will obtain undertaking from them by way of personal and surety bonds. It will, however, be open to the Court to allow them to represent the firm by a Managing Director of the petitioner-firm or duly appointed nominee in this behalf on an undertaking that they will not change the Managing Director or the nominee or the nomenclature or the character of the petitioner-firm or the company without the prior permission of the Court. This has been conveyed to the petitioner through their counsel Shri S. S. Kanwar. The Court concerned will conduct the trial and dispose of the case on priority basis. 5. It may further be stated that the trial Court has started trying this case as a summon case, which is patently illegal. It is apparent that for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act for which the accused are being tried, carries maximum punishment upto three years and as such obviously, it is a warrant case and the same is required to be tried as such, that is, a warrant case instituted otherwise than on police report and as such the provisions of section 244 onwards of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted thereto. The notice of accusation given to the accused Naresh Kumar dated June 10, 1987, therefore, is quashed and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the case in accordance with the provisions of section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stay granted by this Court vide order dated May 2, 1988, is vacated. The record of the trial Court be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith. Stay vacated. -