C.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) PIARE Lal has filed this revision against the judgment dated September: 6. 1977(sic), of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months together with the payment of a fine of Rs. l,00(sic)/ -in relation to the commission of an offence under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as imposed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga, by judgment dated November 2.(sic), 1976 had been confirmed.
(2.) IT was on February 26, 1976, at Moga that 68(sic) gm of wheat flour was purchased from the Petitioner by Dr. Prem Paul Bansal PW1, the Food inspector. The report of the Public Analyst in relation to the sample of flour obtained from the Petitioner is that the same contained four living insects and was unfit for human consumption. The only argument taken by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner is that when the sample was obtained there could only be eggs of insects and not the insects themselves. The report is dated March 20(sic) , 1976. Thus only a period of four weeks since the obtaining of the sample had elapsed when it was examined by the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector, when recalled for cross -examination admitted this fact that while putting the flour into packets he did not observe any insect even though he had made a careful observation in this respect i(sic) earned counsel for the Petitioner has quoted from Encyclopeadia Britannica that the total life cycle of a flour beetle from egg to adult can be completed in four weeks but generally requires longer depending on such conditions as temperature, moisture and available food. From the manner in which the Food Inspector has given evidence in this case this inference can be drawn that the insects were originally not there when the sample was obtained but only eggs existed which subsequently developed into insects Learned Counsel then cited Mohinder Pershad v. Stare(1), a ruling of the Delhi High Court. In a similar case this view was taken that the eggs of an insect is not the same thing as insect itself though such an egg may in due course cause an insect to come into existence. It was further held that the mere presence of eggs of Insects in an article cannot make the article of food insect infested. An article of food for being declared adulterated has to infested or otherwise unfit for human consumption and not egg infested insected. The public Analyst took into consideration only this fact that the flour was insect -infested and was, therefore, unfit for human consumption. His view may have, therefore, been otherwise if it had been examined on the very date the sample was obtained by the Food Inspector. Thus there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the Petitioner in this case and for that reason this revision is accepted and the Petitioner is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted by the trial Magistrate. R.M.S. Petition allowed. ;