State of Maharashtra Through Food Safety Officer Gadchiroli vs Vivek Gangadhar Aainchwar Others Advocate - P.M.Dhait — 62/2018
Case under Food Safety and Standards Act,2006 Section 3,1,zz,vii,,viii. Status: Evidence Before Charge. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHGA090001392018
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
124/2018
Filing Date
22-02-2018
Registration No
62/2018
Registration Date
22-02-2018
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Chamorshi
Judge
10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
FIR Details
Police Station
Pendhri
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Food Safety Officer Gadchiroli
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vivek Gangadhar Aainchwar Others Advocate - P.M.Dhait
Smt.Kunda Dhannajay Tawade
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Jt. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chamorshi
Evidence Before Charge
Evidence Before Charge
Evidence Before Charge
Evidence Before Charge
Evidence Before Charge
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Evidence Before Charge |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence Before Charge |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence Before Charge |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence Before Charge |
| 22-01-2026 | Evidence Before Charge |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Vivek Gangadhar Ainchwar (62/2018) Outcome: Application for trial separation rejected and kept pending. The court issued a proclamation against Accused No.2 under CrPC Section 82, ordering all methods be exhausted to secure her presence before separating trials or recording evidence. Key Facts: Accused No.1 sought separation of his trial from Accused No.2 (a food safety violations case filed in 2018), arguing Accused No.2 never appeared despite summons and warrants. The court found that evidence cannot be recorded against an absconded accused without exhausting legal procedures, so it deferred the separation application pending proclamation results. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Maharashtra v. Vivek Gangadhar Ainchwar (62/2018) Outcome: Application for trial separation rejected and kept pending. The court issued a proclamation against Accused No.2 under CrPC Section 82, ordering all methods be exhausted to secure her presence before separating trials or recording evidence. Key Facts: Accused No.1 sought separation of his trial from Accused No.2 (a food safety violations case filed in 2018), arguing Accused No.2 never appeared despite summons and warrants. The court found that evidence cannot be recorded against an absconded accused without exhausting legal procedures, so it deferred the separation application pending proclamation results. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts