JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---On 2nd November, 1974 Manohar Ratan Sawant, a Food Inspector of Bombay, purchased 400 grams poppy Khas-Khas from the shop of the respondent in this appeal (hereafter referred to as the accused). After dividing the quantity purchased into three parts and after packing the same, he sent one part to the Public Analyst who has by his report dated 12th November, 1974 mentioned that the sample sent to him was on visual examination found to contain large number of living larva and weevils. He gave his opinion that the sample was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. On these facts, the accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Case No. 4/AD/75 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon. In support of its case the prosecution examined not only the Food Inspector but also the Public Analyst who had submitted the report referred to above. The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 24th October, 1975 acquitted the accused of the offence with which he was charged. This order of acquittal is challenged by the State in the present appeal which is supported before me by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.B. Patil. 3. Mr. Patil pointed out that the reasons given by the learned trial Magistrate for acquitting the accused are totally untenable. The learned trial Magistrate was of the opinion that since the Food Inspector did not notice weevils at the time he took the sample, it must be held that the sample which was sold to him did not contain weevils. The learned trial Magistrate relied upon what he called the common knowledge that the eggs of these insects are miscroscopic and not visible to the naked eye. He therefore, proceeded to hold that at best the sample sold by the accused to the Food Inspector could be said to be have contained eggs and not weevils. In this view of the case that he took, he acquitted the accused. Mr. Patil says that this is wholly a wrong approach adopted by the learned trial Magistrate. The Food Inspector, says Mr. In this view of the case that he took, he acquitted the accused. Mr. Patil says that this is wholly a wrong approach adopted by the learned trial Magistrate. The Food Inspector, says Mr. Patil, is not expected to examine a sample which he purchases because ultimately that sample is to be subjected to an analysis by a qualified analyst, whose opinion will be the basis of the prosecution under this Act. If therefore, the Food Inspector had said nothing about the detection of the weevils in the sample which he purchased, that cannot be regarded as an infirmity in the prosecution evidence. There is considerable substance in this contention of Mr. Patil. 4. However, Mr. Ganatra, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, has pointed out that even if it is held that the sample contained insects, it is not shown by the prosecution that the presence of the insects rendered the sample unfit for human consumption which is necessary in Order that the sample is held to be adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Act as it then stood. The accused has been specifically charged with the offence of adulteration within the meaning of section 2(i)(f) of the Act and unless the prosecution proves that the sample sold by the accused to the Food Inspector was so infested with insects that it was unfit for human consumption, conviction cannot be recorded on the facts of this case. 5. This argument of Mr. Ganatra is based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Municipal Corporation v. Kacheroo Mal)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 394. In that case the Supreme Court was examining the culpability of the accused before it for selling cashewnuts which were found to be infested with insects. There were more than one point argued before the Supreme Court. While disposing of the same, the Supreme Court pointed out that the expression "insect infested" is to be construed in the context of an article for food meant for human consumption. Thus construed the expression insect infested means that the article so abounds in insects dead or living that it is rendered unfit for human consumption. It was not enough to prove mere insect infestation for the purposes of holding that the article is adulterated. Further proof was necessary that the article was unfit for human consumption. Thus construed the expression insect infested means that the article so abounds in insects dead or living that it is rendered unfit for human consumption. It was not enough to prove mere insect infestation for the purposes of holding that the article is adulterated. Further proof was necessary that the article was unfit for human consumption. The Supreme Court noted that in regard to the cashewnuts there was no statutory provisions prescribing any minimum standard of purity with reference to the vice of insect infestation. If such standard was there, the accused before the Supreme Court could have been convicted for selling an article of food in contravention of the rules made under the Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court had to proceed on the basis that mere presence of insects did not result in contravention of any rule and then to find out whether not was adulterated within the meaning of one or the other clause of section 2(i) of the Act. 6. In the case before me, Rule A.05.18 mentions that the proportion of extraneous matter in khas-khas shall not exceed 15.0 per cent by weight and further that it shall non-contain 40.0 per cent by weight of non-volatic either extract. There is no reference to the presence of insects in this particular rule. Mere presence of insects, therefore, in khas-khas will not result in the contravention of the relevant Rules. Neither the report of the Public Analyst or his testimony or his oath in the Court refers to the unfitness of the sample for human consumption. There is no question of accepting or rejecting evidence in that regard, because there is no evidence at all in that regard. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Kocheroo Mals case, therefore, it is inevitable that the order of acquittal passed in the instant case will have to be upheld though for different reasons. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Bombay, in Case No. 4/AD/75 is confirmed. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. -----