JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the Municipal Board, Gangapur City, against an order of acquittal under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. It is not in dispute that the accused, who was a general merchant in Naya Bazar, Gangapur City was selling Haldi, and a sample was taken by the Food Inspector. This sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Public Analyst, and he seat the following report : Lead Chromate Nil. Artificial Colouring Matter Nil. Extraneous Matter Nil. Insect Infestation The sample has been partly damaged by insect-pest. 3. The sample is adulterated under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2, of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 4. The Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that simply because the sample has been partly damaged by insect-pest, it cannot be said that the article was adulterated. 5. The entire care depends upon the interpretation of clause (f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under:- "If the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed of diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption". The Public Analyst has treated it as insect-infested on the ground that it has been partly damaged by insect-pest. 6. The question whether a particular article is insect-infested or not was considered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Shri Kaeheroomal. (1) Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:- "The expression "insect-infested" was not defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has, therefore, to be given its ordinary meaning. The word infest appears to have been derived from the Latin word infest are which meant to assail or molest. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (Volume V at page 259) the word infest means "To attack, assail, anney, or trouble (a person or thing) in a persistent manner", "to visit persistently or in large number for purposes of destruction or plunder", word infestation is stated to mean : "The action of infesting, assailing, harassing, or persistently molesting". It is also mentioned that the word is now used especially "insect infested", if it has been attacked by insects in swarms of numbers. It is also mentioned that the word is now used especially "insect infested", if it has been attacked by insects in swarms of numbers. It however seems to us that there is no justification for the view that insect-infestation would only continue so long as the insects in large swarms or numbers and for some reason these insects die, the mere fact that the article of food has no longer living insects but has dead insects will not change its character of being insect infested". "A Public Analyst is supposed to be specially skilled in the science of dietetics. As an expert in the science, he is competent to opine and testify about this fact. The report of the Public Analyst including his opinion on this point, is per se evidence by virtue of Section 13 of the Act. But this does not mean that his ipse dixit would be conclusive and binding on the Court. To treat it so would be to leave the determination of the guilt of the accused to the whims and fancies of the Public Analysts. The Act would not countenance such abdication of its judicial function by the court, leaving the case as it were to be tried by the Analyst. It is for the court to weigh his opinion and reach its own finding." His opinion would be just a piece of evidence which has to be evaluated by the Court in the circumstances of a particular case to reach a finding as to be the unfitness or otherwise of the sample for human consumption. The question of varying any standard of quality or limits of variability in the case of Kaju pieces does not arise because no such standard has been fixed either in the act or in the rules framed thereunder : 7. The learned Magistrate has held that the report of the Public Analyst fails to mention that the food stuff was not fit for human consumption, and no details have been given to held that it was insect-infested. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that this view calls for no interference in appeal against acquittal. It is true that normally the opinion of the Public Anaylst, which is a legal evidence is to be accepted. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that this view calls for no interference in appeal against acquittal. It is true that normally the opinion of the Public Anaylst, which is a legal evidence is to be accepted. However, in the present case, the expert stopped after mentioning that the sample has been partly damaged by insect-pest, but did not elaborate further. It is, therefore, difficult to held in a case of doubtful nature that it comes within the categories mentioned above and the benefit of doubt, therefore, goes to the accused. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in this appeal against acquittal. 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******