JUDGMENT - A.R. SHIMPI, J.:---The accused has filed this revision Application aggrieved by the order of conviction passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 106 of 1975 by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, who confirmed the conviction of the accused applicant under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and enhanced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The facts, in brief are as under :--- The accused Jivraj Virchand Gandhi runs a provisions shop at Akluj in Malsiras Taluka of Sholapur District. On 20th November, 1973 at about 5 p.m. one Londhe, Food Inspector, Sholapur, along with another Food Inspector Deshmukh and two panchas visited the shop of the accused. The accused had kept Atta for sale in his shop. Another sample of Maida was taken. However, we are not concerned with that sample for the purposes of this revision application. The Food Inspector purchased 600 Grams of Atta from the accused and paid him Rs. 1.20 ps. Other formalities were observed by the Food Inspector. The sample was divided into three equal parts. Sample was kept in clean empty dry bottles. The bottles were corked properly and wrapped with thick paper. It appears that sample was sent to the Public-Analyst for examination on 28th of November, 1973 and a report of the Public Analyst was received on 29th January, 1974. It is at Exhibit 18. He received the sample of Atta and analysed it and noted its observation as "cobwebs and grubs present." He also stated--- "I am of the opinion that the sample No. BGL/154 contains cobwebs, grubs and is adulterated under section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954." The meaning of "cobwebs" occurring in Oxford Concise Dictionary means "spiders net work; Material or thing of flimsy texture, musty rubbish." It, therefore, follows from the report of the Public Analyst that this Atta contained some rubbish as well as larva of insect, and therefore, the Public analyst held it as an adulterated article. After the receipt of this report, from the Public Analyst, necessary sanction was obtained and the accused was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malsiras. After the receipt of this report, from the Public Analyst, necessary sanction was obtained and the accused was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malsiras. The learned Magistrate on this evidence held that the accused had sold adulterated food, namely, adulterated Atta to the complainant and negatived other contentions raised on behalf of the accused that there was breach of Rules, inasmuch as it has not been shown that 600 Grams of Atta was purchased or that Atta was kept for sale by the accused. The learned Magistrate, however, held, considering the circumstances in this case, that the accused who was an old man aged 60 years and who was a petty trader and who has committed not a very heinous crime, should be given advantage of the Probation of Offends Act. He, therefore, held the accused guilty and released him on a probation of good conduct for a period of two years on executing a personal bond with one surety for Rs. 500/-. After this decision, a suo motu notice was issued by the Sessions Court why the sentence of the accused should not be enhanced. After hearing the accused, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the sentence, as already stated above. It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the accused sold adulterated article of food or that Atta was adulterated. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept that contention. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present revision application has been filed. Shri Patankar, who appears for the accused applicant, has raised several contentions. One of them is that it has not been proved by the prosecution that the sample was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and he urged that if the Atta cannot be said to be an adulterated article, the accused cannot be convicted. In my opinion, this contention raised on behalf of the accused by Shri Patankar, has substance, and it is not necessary to refer to his other submissions urged before me, viz., that there was a breach of Rules, inasmuch it has not been proved by the prosecution that 600 grams of Atta was purchased from the accused or that the accused had stored Atta for sale. It is not disputed that the report of the Public Analyst has not stated that the sample examined by him was unfit for human consumption, though he has referred to the presence of certain rubbish material and larvae of insect present in the Atta, he has made a bald statement that the sample examined by him is adulterated under section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The report of the Public Analyst is admissible in evidence and can be read in evidence. However, the Public Analyst is not examined at the trial, so that he could have thrown some light as to whether sample examined by him was fit or unfit for human consumption. The Food Inspector in his evidence stated that he has passed B.Sc. Examination and he is a trained Food Inspector. However, he cannot give the meaning of cobwebs and grubs. But he admitted in paragraph 4 that insects are naturally formed in the Atta. It is also to be noticed that though the Atta was purchased on 20th of November, 1973, the sample of it was kept by the Food Inspector in a sealed condition with him and appears to have been sent to the Public Analyst on 28th November, 1973. One does not know the extent of the quantity of Atta kept by the accused for sale and for how many days it was kept. In view of this state of evidence, it is first necessary to examine what is the true meaning and effect of adulterated article. Section 2, sub-section (ia) defines "Adulterated" as :--- "2(ia) "adulterated"---an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated--- (a) ............. to (e) ............ (f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;" Reading this clause, it will be clear that the article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if that article of food is wholly or in part in a filthy condition or in rotten condition or in decomposed condition or is insect-infested, or is otherwise unfit for human consumption. It appears that the article must be shown to be not only fifty, putrid, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested, but must also be shown that the article is otherwise unfit for human consumption. It appears that the article must be shown to be not only fifty, putrid, rotten, decomposed or insect-infested, but must also be shown that the article is otherwise unfit for human consumption. Clauses "fifthly, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased.........insect infested" "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" will have to be read conjunctively and if these two conditions are shown to exist, then such an article can be said to be an adulterated article. It is true that they could be read disjunctively also, but, if they are read disjunctively, then the burden on the prosecution would be to show that the article is either filthy, putrid, rotten, de-composed or is insect-infested. That would suggest or show the quality of the article, but that would not necessarily make that article unfit for human consumption. I am, therefore, of the opinion that these clauses will have to be conjunctively read and the burden would be on the prosecution to show that the article was not only filthy, putrid, rotten or insect-infested, but also that it was unfit for human consumption. In the instant case the report of the Public Analyst showed that there were larva and insect and some rubbish, but the report of the Public Analyst does not show that the Atta was unfit for human consumption. The Food Inspector stated that growth of the insect is natural in the Atta if the Atta is contained or kept for many days in the container then the insects are naturally formed. If that is so, it must be shown that such Atta is unfit for human consumption. Atta has been defined in Rule A. 18.01 and Atta means the coarse product obtained by milling or grinding wheat. It shall conform to the following standards :--- (a) Moisture...Not more than 14.0 per cent (when determined by hearing 130-1300C for 2 hours). (b) Total ash on dry weight basis....Not more than 2.0 per cent. (c) Ash insoluble in dilute HCI.....Not more than (on dry weight basis) 0.15 per cent. (d) Gluteon (on dry weight basis) ... Not less than 6.0 per cent. (e) Alcholic acidity (with 90 per cent alcohol expressed as H2So4 (on dry weight basis) ...Not more than 0.18 per cent. Rodent hair and excreta shall not exceed 5 pieces per Kg. It does not show that simply by the formation of some larva, Atta becomes unfit for human consumption. Not less than 6.0 per cent. (e) Alcholic acidity (with 90 per cent alcohol expressed as H2So4 (on dry weight basis) ...Not more than 0.18 per cent. Rodent hair and excreta shall not exceed 5 pieces per Kg. It does not show that simply by the formation of some larva, Atta becomes unfit for human consumption. Therefore, reading the whole of the prosecution evidence, there is no evidence to show that the article, namely, Atta, which was purchased by the Food Inspector and which was examined by the Public Analyst was an adulterated Article of food. This section has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in (Municipal Corporation of Delhi-Appellant v. Kacheroo Mal)1, 1976(1) Supreme Court Cases 412. After quoting the relevant provisions of the section in paragraph 10, the Supreme Court has observed :--- "The phrase "or is otherwise unfit for human consumption" can be read conjunctively as well as disjunctively. If it is read conjunctively, that is, in association with what proceeds it, sub-Clause (f) with slight consequent re-arrangement and parenthesis would read like this : If the article is unfit for human consumption on account of, "(a) its consisting wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance of being insect-infested, (b) or on account of any other cause. In this view of the sub-clause, proof of "unfitness of the article for human consumption", is a must for bringing the case within its purview. If the phrase is to be read disjunctively, the mere proof of the whole or any part of the article being "filthy, putrid, disgusting rotten........ or insect-infested" would be conclusive to bring the case within the mischief of this sub-clause, and it would not be necessary in such a case, to prove further that the article was unfit for human consumption." Thereafter the Supreme Court states in paragraph 12--- "We would prefer the first construction as it comports best with reason, common sense, realities, the tenor of this provisions and the main purpose and scheme of the Act. The adjectives filthy, putrid, disgusting, de-composed, rotten .....................insect infested refer to the quality of the article and furnish the indicia for presuming the article to be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption may not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the character of the article, and the nature and extent of the vice afflicting it. The adjectives filthy, putrid, disgusting, de-composed, rotten .....................insect infested refer to the quality of the article and furnish the indicia for presuming the article to be unfit for human consumption. But the presumption may not be conclusive in all cases, irrespective of the character of the article, and the nature and extent of the vice afflicting it. This is particularly, so, where an article is found to be insect-infested." In paragraph 16, the Supreme Court further observed :--- "If we may say so with respect, this is a correct exposition of the law embodied in section 2(i)(f). We need only add for the sake of elucidation, that these adjectives indicate presumptive but not absolute criteria as to the quality of the articles. In such case it must be proved that the article was unfit for human consumption. In the case of articles for which the Rules lay down any minimum standard of purity with reference to any of the vices specified in this sub-clause; mere proof of the fact that the impurity was in excess of that countenanced by the prescribed standard would be conclusive to show that the article was unfit for human consumption." As there is no evidence in the instant case that this Atta was unfit for human consumption it cannot be said that it was an adulterated article of food. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the order of conviction and sentence will have to be set aside and the accused will have to be acquitted of the offences charged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the accused. Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. -----