O. P. JAIN, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C, for quashing the complaint filed against applicant No. 2, N. K. Mittal and another person under Section 7 (1)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17-12-1986 at about 2-30 p. m. the Food Inspector Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur visited the country liguor shop run by Dileep Kumar as well as Pradeep Kumar Thekedar and M/s. Carew and Co. Ltd. The Food Inspector found that masala, Santara and sada country liquor was stored for sale. The Inspector suspect ed that the masala country liquor is adulterated. He, therefore, gave notice to Dileep Kumar and purchased a bottle of masala sarab after paying Rs. 48. The sealed bottle was opened in the presence of witnesses and samples were taken in three bottles which were duly sealed. One of the bottles was sent to Public Analyst U. P. Lucknow and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Chief Medical Officer, Shahjahanpur. The Public Analyst reported that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards. On this basis a prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction from the C. M. O. on filing of the complaint 2nd A. C. J. M. , Shahjahanpur issued warrant against the Manager of Carew and Company. Under these circumstances the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and have gone through the record. 4. The only contention which has been advanced on behalf of the applicants is that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed there under do not prescribe any standard for country liquor and, therefore, no offence can be said to have been made against the applicants. 5. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the applicants has filed Annexure 5 which is a copy of a judgment given by Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the cited case |the Food Inspector took a sample of Dry Gin manufactured by Carews and it was found that the alcoholic strength was 78. 80 proof against the declared alcoholic strength of 75 shown on the bottle. In the cited case |the Food Inspector took a sample of Dry Gin manufactured by Carews and it was found that the alcoholic strength was 78. 80 proof against the declared alcoholic strength of 75 shown on the bottle. In these circumstances it was held that no offence is made out against the applicants. Another case of Punjab and Haryana High Court which has been cited is Annexure 6. In that case also the alcoholic strength was found to be 78. 87 proof instead of 75 proof. It was held that admittedly no standard of alcoholic strength is prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears from the judgment that the Food Inspector relied on Rule 29 which prohibits the use of coal-tar-dye. As no coal-tar-dye was detected in the sample no offence was made out. In the instant case also the report of the Public Analyst has stated that no coal-tar-dye was found. The third case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant is Annexure 7 which is an order of the Lucknow Bench of this Court. That is only an order of admission. 6. So far as the case in hand is concerned the Public Analyst has found the alcoholic content of the sample as 26. 86 against the declared alcoholic content of 86 per cent. The question therefore, arises that if the sample does not conform to the declaration made on the label whether an offence under the P. F. A. Act and rules is made out or not. 7. The word "adulterated" is defined by Section 2 (a) of the Act which lays down that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated : (a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be ; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (j ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (k ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (l) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, which renders its injurious to health. 8. It will thus be seen that falling below the prescribed standard is only one of the thirteen sub-clause under which an article of food may be said to be adulterated. Therefore, it is not necessary that there must be a prescribed standard of quality or purity in all cases. It is wrong to suggest that an article of food can never be said to be adulterated unless some standard of its purity or quality is prescribed under the rules framed under the Act. 9. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Brahamdas v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 ACC 337 (SC) : 1988 JIC 576 (SC), in which it was held that "masoor-dal-wholet has no prescribed standard of purity but if it is found insect infested and unfit for human consumption, Section 2 (f) is attracted and conviction was upheld. This shows that an article of food for which there is no prescribed standard of quality or purity can nevertheless be found adulterated. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant has quoted Rule 485 and some other rules of U. P. Excise Rules but it is unnecessary to go into these rules at this stage. This shows that an article of food for which there is no prescribed standard of quality or purity can nevertheless be found adulterated. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant has quoted Rule 485 and some other rules of U. P. Excise Rules but it is unnecessary to go into these rules at this stage. The rules framed under the P. F. A. Act and the rules framed under the Excise Act are not mutually exclusive. There may be an infringement of one set of rules without there being an infringement of the other set of rules. There can be an infringement which is punishable under both the rules. 11. In view of the above discussion, a prima facie case is made out and it is not a fit case in which proceedings should be quashed. It will be for the trial court to examine all aspects of the matter. 12. Before parting with the case it may be pointed out that the learned Magistrate has issued a non- bailable warrant against the Manager of Carew and Co. Ltd. , Roza, Shahjahanpur. A non-bailable warrant can be issued only against a person by name and not by mentioning the designation alone. The person who was the Manager at the time of the commission of the offence alone can be proceeded against and not the person who happens to be the Manager at the time when the warrant is issued. Therefore, a non-bailable warrant should not be issued without mentioning the name of the person who is sought to be arrested. 13. It is said in para 17 of the petition that N. K. Mittal against whom warrant has been issued was not the General Manager of the Company in year 1986-87. In fact Sri Mittal was not in service of Carew and Co. prior to December, 1990. 14. The learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the General Manager of the Company without mentioning his name with the result the N. K. Mittal, who had nothing to do with the case, was arrested. 15. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is partly allowed and the non-bailable warrant issued against N. K. Mittal is ordered to be withdrawn. 15. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is partly allowed and the non-bailable warrant issued against N. K. Mittal is ordered to be withdrawn. The learned Magistrate may issue process against the person who may DO found responsible and who was incharge of the affairs of the Company at the relevant time. Summons or warrant must give the name and designation and other particulars of the person whose attendance is to be secured. 16. The prayer to quash the proceedings is refused. The application is partly allowed as indicated above. Application partly allowed. .