(1) THIS appeal is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for the charges under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal against acquittal failed in the High court. The Delhi Administration is in appeal before us by way of special leave. (2) IN paragraph 10 of the memo of appeal the Delhi Administration has stated as follows: "HERE the main question for consideration is whether living meal worms come under the category of insects as contemplated under Section 2(ia)(f) of the PFA Act. The Delhi High court has held that eggs and larvae are not insects living meal worms are different stages of the larvae. THE petitioner humbly states that the learned Magistrate has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case in view of Section 2(ia)(f) of the PFA Act. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is not safe to allow the traders to circulate such insect-infested and contaminated articles to consumers as in the present case." (3) WE have seen the report of the Public Analyst in the present case. The Public Analyst after giving the composition of the foodstuff expressed his opinion in the following terms: "THE sample contains eight living meal worms and one living weevil." (4) AS would be seen from the report of the Public Analyst, he has not opined that the sample of Suji was either insect-infested or that it was unfit for human consumption on account of presence of meal worms in that or that it was otherwise fit for human consumption. In the absence of such an opinion, it is not possible for us to upset the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Magistrate or find fault with the order of acquittal. In the absence of such an opinion, it is not possible for us to upset the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Magistrate or find fault with the order of acquittal. In taking this view we are fortified by a judgment of this court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Puran Mal , whereunder somewhat similar circumstances this court opined: "EVEN if the nine worms found by the Public Analyst in the sample are considered to be insects, the certificate of the Public Analyst does not support the case of the prosecution that the lal mirchi powder was adulterated, for the Public Analyst has not expressed his opinion that the lal mirchi powder was either worm-infested or insect-infested or that on account of the presence of the meal worms the sample was unfit for human consumption. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not established by any satisfactory evidence the requirement of Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act." (5) SINCE, the appellant has failed to establish, by any satisfactory evidence, the requirement of Section 2(ia)(f) of the Act, the judgment under appeal does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent shall stand discharged.