Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the notice/non-bailable warrants issued by the learned trial Magistrate on January 21.1997. 2. On August 27, 1992 eight samples of Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by the company Mis. Agro Tech India Ltd. were taken as samples and sent to the testing laboratory. The laboratory submitted that the samples submitted for examination were not as per prescribed standard. On the basis of the aforesaid report an FIR No.77 dated September 22, 1993 under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against Sushil Chandra Mishra. Subsequently, when the matter was pending before the learned trial Magistrate, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor to summon M/s. Agro Tech India Ltd. Budhewal, PS Sahnewal. Another application was filed by the Public Prosecutor on April 16, 1996 before the learned trial Magistrate saying that in fact the company be summoned through Shri K. S. Dhillon its managing partner. On the aforesaid application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated January 21, 1997 summoned the accused through non-bailable warrants. A copy of the aforesaid order is appended as Annexure P.4 with the present petition. 3. Shri Dinesh Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no cause for the learned trial Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrants against the accused inasmuch as even as per the application filed by the Public Prosecutor it was only the company M/s. Agro Tech India Ltd. which had been summoned as the accused. According to the learned counsel, from the perusal of the subsequent application dated April 16, 1996 filed by the Public Prosecutor, the aforesaid company was sought to be summoned through its managing partner, the present petitioner K. S. Dhillon. However, the trial Magistrate without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact issued the non-bailable warrants against the present petitioner. Shri Goyal relies upon V. K. Garg V/s. State of Punjab to contend that in fact the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the present petitioner was wholly improper and in fact the order was without Jurisdiction. 4. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself in agreement with the same. 4. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself in agreement with the same. Perusal of the two applications made by the Public Prosecutor would clearly show that the company was sought to be impleaded as an additional accused. Later on, it was pointed out by the Public Prosecutor before the learned trial Magistrate that the said company be summoned through its managing partner K. S. Dhillon. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the present petitioner was never impleaded in his personal capacity. It was only company which was impleaded as an additional accused. In these circumstances, the order dated January 21, 1997 issuing non-bailablewarrants against the petitioner was wholly without Jurisdiction and uncalled for. 6. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed and the order dated January 21, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is quashed. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that quashing of the aforesaid order would have no effect on the requirement of company appearing before the learned trial Magistrate on all dates so fixed. The company shall be represented either by the present petitioner or by anyone of the Principal Officers so appointed or nominated in this regard. 8. Allowed with the aforesaid observations. Petition allowed.