( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th May, 1985, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, in Case No. 272/83, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondents herein of the offence/charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are as under : that on 1-10-83 at about 4-15 P. M. Rajpal Singh, Food Inspector purchased a sample of Maida for analysis under the PFA Act/rules from accused Inderjit Singh at the premises of Khairati Lal, 1080-A Darshan Bhawan, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi. One counter-part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who declared the sample to be adulterated on the ground that it contained alcoholic acidity to the extent of 0-14 per cent as against of 0. 12 per cent besides containing 83 per kg of the living and 194 per kg of the dead insects. After the receipt of the public analyst report consent Ex PW4/a was obtained from Secretary Medical, Delhi Admn. And complaint Ex. PW1/a was filed in the court. Accused Inderjit Singh exercised his right u/s 13 (2) of PFA Act and obtained the report of CFSL, Pune who declared the same to be adulterated on the ground that it had living insects and dead grubs in abundance. The report of the Director has been given on 6-2-84.

( 3 ) ON a evaluation of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate returned a finding that the report of the Director, CFSL shows living insects found in the sample meaning that the sample was not properly sealed and on this account has acquitted the accused. Counsel for the State has not been able to show me as to how with living insects found in the sample, it could be said that the sample was properly secured as per rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has also not been able to show me as to what is the infirmity in the judgment under challenge. That being the case, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. Crl. A. 58/1986 is accordingly dismissed.

.