- (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. ";