JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Bhagwan Das wa9 convicted by the trial court under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to 6 months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of its payment to two months further R.I. He filed an appeal but unsuccessfully; hence this revision application. 2. In brief the facts are that on 28.9.1978 at 4.00 p.m. the Food Inspector, in the market of village Bisauli. Police Station Bisauli, District Badaun, found the revisionist exposing 'south' for sale. He purchased 300 gms. of sonth for Rs. 2.40 in presence of eye-witnesses and divided it in three equal parts. One of the sample was given to the revisionist and the other one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The public analyst submitted a report that the sonth was insect-mfested to the extent of 32.5 per cent. Both the courts below have held that it was adulterated and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. The only point which the learned counsel for the revisionist has urged before me is that the mere fact that an article of food insect-infested does not make it adulterated. It should be further proved that it is unfit for human consumption. Reliance is placed on the case, of Municipal Corporation Delhi v. Kachherumal, 1975 (I) F.A.C. 223 , in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court after a resume of number of cases have held that the mere fact that an article of food found to be insect-infested will not make it adulterated. It must further be proved that it was unfit for human consumption. In the instant case, I have perused the report of the Public Analyst. He has nowhere mentioned in it that the south examined by him was unfit for human consumption. No other evidence was adduced to establish this fact. In these circumstances, the south cannot be held to be adulterated in spite of the fact that it was found to be insect-infested. He has nowhere mentioned in it that the south examined by him was unfit for human consumption. No other evidence was adduced to establish this fact. In these circumstances, the south cannot be held to be adulterated in spite of the fact that it was found to be insect-infested. I would have remanded the case to the lower Court for summoning the Public Analyst for examining him on the question whether the south was fit for human consumption or not but I am not inclined to do so because the sample was taken in 1973 and the Public Analyst had given his report in October, 1973 to which a long period of five years has expired. By lapse of time, the sonth must have become unfit for human consumption otherwise also. Therefore no useful purpose would be served by summoning the Public Analyst and having his opinion on it. The revisionist has already suffered harassmant for long five years besides expenses and on that score also it is not worthwhile to remit the case to the lower court. 4. In the result, the revision-application is allowed and the applicant's conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence thereunder are set aside. The fine deposited, shall be refunded.