State of Kerala(Food safety case) vs K Sudhakaran Advocate - STEPHEN. E — 400360/2019
Case under Food Safety and Standards Act Section 59(1),3(1)(zz)(v),(vii),26(1)(2)(i). Status: Appearance Of Parties. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL180015172019
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
1517/2019
Filing Date
01-06-2019
Registration No
400360/2019
Registration Date
01-06-2019
Court
JFMC I, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala(Food safety case)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
K Sudhakaran Advocate - STEPHEN. E
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara
Appearance Of Parties
Oders in CMP
Appearance of Accused
For hearing in CMP
Appearance of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
| 22-04-2026 | Oders in CMP |
| 01-04-2026 | Appearance of Accused |
| 12-03-2026 | For hearing in CMP |
| 17-02-2026 | Appearance of Accused |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed by K. Sudhakaran, a general merchant, seeking discharge from charges under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Sections 59(1) r/w 3(1)(zz)(v) and (vii)) was dismissed. The court found that the accused's claims—that he did not sell or store the jaggery for sale, that liability rests with the manufacturer, and that procedural violations occurred—constituted disputed questions of fact requiring evidence at trial, and were insufficient to establish that the charges were groundless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed by K. Sudhakaran, a general merchant, seeking discharge from charges under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Sections 59(1) r/w 3(1)(zz)(v) and (vii)) was dismissed. The court found that the accused's claims—that he did not sell or store the jaggery for sale, that liability rests with the manufacturer, and that procedural violations occurred—constituted disputed questions of fact requiring evidence at trial, and were insufficient to establish that the charges were groundless. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts