ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - The present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner. Atul Gulati is the Managing Director of M/s Bharat Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Alwar. The prayer made in the petition is for quashing of the complaint dated October 5, 1993 filed under Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Control, 1985 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A copy of the aforesaid order has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the present petition. 2. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated September 29, 1995 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. A copy of the aforesaid order has been appended as Annexure P.2 with the present petition. 3. The sole contention raised by Shri Dinesh Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the complaint would show that in the aforesaid complaint only three persons, namely, Ram Lal (dealer), Ram (proprietor) and one R.K. Duggal, who was the production manager and responsible officer on behalf of the company were arrayed as accused. A further perusal of the order dated September 29, 1995 passed by the learned Special Judge shows that the aforesaid R.K. Duggal could not be served as warrants of arrest were not received. Since the aforesaid R.K. Duggal was not being served, therefore, in his place the present petitioner Atul Gulati has been ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. 4. Shri Dinesh Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this course was not open to the learned Special Judge inasmuch as there are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner Atul Gulati in the complaint itself, nor there is anything to connect him with the sub-standard fertilizer. It is further maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact there was no application even filed by the Public Prosecutor to implead the petitioner as an additional accused. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to succeed. 6. A perusal of the order dated September 29, 1995 shows that it was passed by the learned Special Judge rather mechanically. Nothing has been shown that the petitioner was ever arrayed as an accused in the complaint. 6. A perusal of the order dated September 29, 1995 shows that it was passed by the learned Special Judge rather mechanically. Nothing has been shown that the petitioner was ever arrayed as an accused in the complaint. Simply because the original accused No. 3 R.K. Duggal could not be served was no justification to summon the present petitioner through non-bailable warrants. Accordingly, the order dated September 29, 1995 against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The learned Special Judge shall now proceed with the complaint against the accused in accordance with law. Allowed with the aforesaid observations. Petition allowed.