1. If Cane sugar is sold as Glucose, are there still loopholes in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for acquittal? Dextrose has a statutory standard. But Glucose none. Is Dextrose Glucose? Or, is Glucose Dextrose? These questions, simple as they seem, are sufficiently complicated, according to counsel, especially with reference to the specific statutory provisions. The doubt, if any, should go to the accused. So the contention runs. Glucose is reputed to be “a quick and convenient energy food”, recommended, it is said, “as an excellent nutrient during sickness” and declared in advertisements as providing “extra energy required by the body to overcome tiredness”. Glucose is understood by the common man as “assimilated ready source of energy for body issues”. When he purchases therefore Glucose and gets cane sugar, does the Act still protect the seller is he short question.

2. The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, purchased from the shop of the accused 6 packets of Glucose C.D kept for sale. Samples were taken, they were analysed by the Public Analyst who reported thus:

“Sulphated ash —0.06 percent by weight on dry basis Cane sugar —99.8 percent by weight on dry basis Tests for glucose —Negative Acidity —0.06 ml. per 5.0 grammes Sulphur dioxide —5.0 parts per million Moisture —1.6 percent by weight Artificial Sweeteners —Absent”.

3. The accused are prosecuted for offences under S. 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and S. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There is no complaint about the samples or the report of the Analyst.

4. The lower court found that Glucose and Dextrose are not the same; standard has been fixed under the rules only for Dextrose and not for Glucose; and therefore this article was not adulterated within the meaning of that expression in the Act and there was no case for the prosecution that the accused had exhibited for sale misbranded articles. The accused were therefore acquitted. Challenging the acquittal the Food Inspector has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.

5. Standard has been fixed for Dextrose in Appendix B—A.07.07 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules thus:—

“A.07.07-Dextrose is a white or light cream granular powder, odourless and having a sweet taste

When heated with potassium cupritarate solution it shall produce a copious precipitate of cuprous oxide. It shall conform to the following standards:

Sulphated ash…… Not more than 0. 1 per cent on dry basis.

Acidity…… 5.0 gm. dissolved in 50 ml. of freshly boiled and cooled water requires for neutralisation not more than 0. 20 ml. of N/10 sodium hydorxide to phenolphthalein indicator.

Glucose………Not less than 99.0 per cent on dry basis.

Sulphur dioxide content shall not exceed 70 p. p.m”

6. There is no description of Glucose or standard for Glucose under the rules. This is the basis for the contention that there is no adulteration.

7. Glucose, in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, has this meaning:—

“an aldose sugar known in dextrorotatory, and levorotatory and recamic forms; esp: the sweet colourless soluble dextrorotatory D-form that is readily obtained crystalline in both the alpha and beta modifications, that occurs esp. in plant saps and fruits, normally in blood, pathologically in the urine (as in diabates mellitus), and combined in many disaccharides, trisaccharides, polysaccharides, and glucosides in most plant and animal tissues, and that is a chief source of protoplasmic energy and in its simple state is the usual form in which carbohydrate is assimilated into the animal body.”

8. Dextrose has this meaning:—

“dextrorotatory to glucose obtained usu, by acid hydrolysis of starch as sweet crystals of the anhydrous compound or of the monohydrate and used chiefly in foods and beverages, in making caramel, and in intravenous feeding-called also corn sugar, grape sugar”.

9. Dex-tro-rotatory also dex-tro-rotary means:

“turning toward the right hand or clockwise; esp: rotating the plane of polarization of light toward the right band—crystals—sugar solutions—abbr, dextro-??? opposed to levorotatory;”

10. In Chambers Encyclopaedia, ‘Glucose’ means:

“The word glucose is loosely used by chemists to mean the monosaccharide ‘d-glucose’ or ‘dextrose’ (see CARBOHYDRATES). The medical profession use the word in this sense. Commercially the word means a variable mixture of carbohydrates resulting from the hydrolysis of starch.

When starch is treated with acid or enzymes it breaks down and takes up successive molecules of water, forming the progressively simpler substances dextrin, maltose and dextrose. Commercial glucose can have a very variable composition as shown by the following range of the solid matters in some commercial products, e.g confectioners glucose; dextrose, 12-21 per cent; maltose, 24-36 per cent.; dextrin, 47-60 per cent.

xxxxxx”.

11. In the British Pharmacopoeia, Dextrose is described thus:

“Dextrose Monohydrate; Glucose

Description Colourless crystals or a white or cream-coloured, crystalline or granular powder; odourless; taste, sweet.

Solubility Soluble in 1 part of water and in 200 parts of alcohol (95 per cent).

Identification A. When heated, it melts, swells up, and burns, evolving an odour of burnt sugar.

B. When heated with potassium cupri-tartrate solution, it produces a copious precipitate of cuprous oxide.

Acidity 5.0 g. dissolved in 50 ml of freshly boiled and cooied water, requires for neutralisation not more than 0.20 ml of 0.1 M sodium hydroxide, phenolphethalein solution being used as indicator.

When Medicinal Glucose or Purified Glucose is prescribed or demanded, Dextrose shall be dispensed or supplied.”

12. It is necessary to notice in this definition:

(a) that Dextrose is known also as Glucose;

(b) that the description of ‘Dextrose’ in the “Appendix” as white or light cream granular powder is the same as the description for “Glucose”;

(c) when Glucose is prescribed, “Dextrose” shall be dispensed or supplied;

(d) Dextrose and Glucose produce copious precipitate of cuprous oxide when heated in the potassium cupritartarate solution-the same standard fixed for Dextrose in the Appendix to the rules;

(e) that the acidity for Glucose is 5.0 grm, dissolved in 50 ml, of freshly boiled and cooled water, the same as for Dextrose;

(f) that Sulphur dioxide is not more than 70 parts per million for both Dextrose and Glucose.

13. The Merck Index, “the comprehensive interdisciplinary encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs and biological substances”, in its Ninth edition at 4290 states thus:—

“Glucose; D—Glucose; dextrose; blood sugar; grape sugar; corn sugar; Dextropur; Dextrosol; Glucolin. mol. wt. 180.16-A main source of energy for living organism.

14. In “Organic chemistry” “Cram and Hammond”, 4th Edition, at page 775 it is stated thus:—

“A unique system of nomenclature has developed in the field of carbohydrate chemistry since the IUPAC system leads to rather long and awkward names………consider for example, the very important monosaccharide D—Glucose (often known as dextrose).”

15. The standards fixed for ‘Dextrose’ in the Pharmacopoeia of India are practically the same as fixed in the Appendix to the Food Adulteration Rules. ‘Dextrose’ is described as “a sugar, a white crystalline or granular powder with the chemical formula

16. From the above facts, it seems to be clear that ‘Dextrose’ and ‘Glucose’ are both made from carbohydrates, have the same chemical characteristics and formula and what is sold as ‘Glucose’ in the market is Dextrose mentioned in the Appendix to the Food Adulteration Rules. The standard for ‘Dextrose’ under the rules is 99 percent of Glucose which thus clearly implies that Dextrose and Glucose are understood as identical substance and for that reason there is no necessity for a fixation of a separate standard for Glucose. Dextrose is therefore Glucose. They are two names for the same chemical compound.

17. In the present case, Pw. 1 is the Public Analyst employed in the Regional Analytical Laboratory at Calicut. He says “Dextrose is a synonym form of Dextrose D Glucose. Both Dextrose and Glucose have similar structure, chemical properties and reactions. A Glucose molecule containing one non water of hydration is called Dextrose. Dry (an hydrose) Dextrose is Glucose. Both these components are the same except for the presence of water of hydrates”. In cross-examination he stated thus:—

“The term Dextrose pertains only K.D Glucose. There are D centigurations and L. centigurations of Glucose. L. centigurations of Glucose is Lavlose and D. centiguar-ations of Glucose is Dextrose. Both have the same molecular formula.”

18. There is nothing brought out in the cross-examination of Pw. 1 to discredit his testimony. The court below was therefore wrong in rejecting the evidence of Pw. 1 and coming to a conclusion that Glucose and Dextrose are two different substances. The court below has acquitted the accused on the only ground that there is no standard fixed for Glucose and thus there was no “adulteration” as defined under the Act when there was no fall in the prescribed standard. This conclusion is untenable for the reason already stated and the acquittal has to be set aside.

19. The court below has stated ‘there is no case for prosecution that the accused have exhibited for sale misbranded article. This also is challenged in appeal.

20. Pw. 2, the Food Inspector, has stated that he purchased Glucose from the accused who had kept Glucose C.D for sale. On analysis it is found that there was no Glucose—the test for Glucose being nil.

21. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ‘adulterated’ is defined thus, for the purpose of this case:—

“adulterated”—an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated.

(a) If the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

22. In the complaint it was stated thus:

“Sri. N. Mammed Moyin, Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation purchased six packet of Glucose C.D Glucose from A1 from the stock kept for sale which belongs to A2 company. The purchased articles was divided into 3 equal parts and sampled it as per rules then and there in the presence of Vendor and witnesses as sample No. 452 and the remaining two parts handed over to Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst in his report No. 47 dated 9-7-1979 has certified that the sample does not conform the standard prescribed for Dextrose under P.F.A Rules 1955 and is therefore adulterated.

Hence the accused mentioned above have committed an offence punishable under the P.F.A Act.”

23. The facts disclose that though the Food Inspector purchased “Glucose”, he was in fact given a substance which contained no Glucose. As I am sending back the case to the lower court for disposal according to law, the lower court may also consider whether on the facts of the case, the charge itself should not be amended and the accused given an opportunity to answer that charge as well. The facts are already before court and the accused cannot claim acquittal for want of a charge, if the facts warrant a framing of charge in the light of the statutory definition.

24. Ext. P9, the packet in which the substance was sold, describes or advertises thus:—

“Delicious Glucose for everybody”

“Babies get extra energy in a rapidly utilisable form”.

“Helps speedy recovery during sickness and convalescence”.

“Pure Glucose for children”

25. And “Glucose” in bold and white print across the packet stares at everybody.

26. And still the Analyst reports that there is no Glucose, no trace of Glucose in the sample.

27. If still the law protects him, of course, he is entitled to acquittal; not acquittal because of some defect committed by court in the framing of charge.

28. The counsel for the appellant frankly admits that the acquittal of the second accused will have to be maintained on another ground. The copy of the report of the analysis was not given to the second accused and therefore there is violation of the mandatory provision contained in S. 13(2) of the Act. This is fatal for the prosecution and therefore the acquittal of the second accused has to be confirmed on the short ground that so far as he is concerned, S. 13(2) of the Act is not complied with.

29. In the result, the acquittal of the 1st accused is set aside, and the case is sent back to the lower court for disposal according to law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The 1st accused can raise all questions available to him in law except those concluded by this judgment. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to make a few observations. We rush for Glucose when somebody is sick. We give Glucose to give the patient “the extra energy” which he badly requires, the food which he can easily assimilate in the system. If then, the Glucose we buy does not contain Glucose at all, it is really a very serious matter. There are several labels of Glucose in the market. It is necessary that the authorities awake to the risks unfolded in the prosecution of this case and take concerted action to test samples of Glucose available in the market and ascertain how far they maintain the standards prescribed under the Act and the Rules and whether something other than Glucose is sold in the market. There is no reason why in cases where adulteration is noticed, the manufacturer should not also be hauled up in court. The Food Inspectors have to be alive to their responsibilities, alert about the duties to the community and the demands of the society. If the food Inspectors can swing into action, show no discrimination, purchase and analyse suspected articles of food from every dealer, whether he is a manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer, prosecute diligently every person who commits the crime against society, the first step in consumer protection is taken. Many of the cases end in acquittal only because the mandatory provisions are ignored. A little more care to comply strictly with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules will also go a long way in the better enforcement of the provisions. Similarly, time and again, the courts have noticed some lacuna in the provision, and suggested the need for amendment in certain cases. It is necessary that the authorities take notice of those decisions and initiate steps to streamline the provisions of the Act and the Rules Let not adulteration of article of food thrive under the mask of the Food Adulteration Act. Let the Act serve its purpose and the society protected under its wings.

30. Allowed.