FOOD SAFETY OFFICER MECHERI BLOCK vs SATHEESHKUMAR — 114/2025
Case under Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 Section 51,58,59(iii). Status: Reopen. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNSA180001642025
Next Hearing
30th March 2026
e-Filing Number
31-12-2024
Filing Number
163/2025
Filing Date
30-01-2025
Registration No
114/2025
Registration Date
05-02-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettur
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate - II, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FOOD SAFETY OFFICER MECHERI BLOCK
Adv. FOOD SAFETY OFFICER CORPORATION ZONE I
Respondent(s)
SATHEESHKUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate - II, Mettur
Reopen
Judgement
Evidence
Questioning
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Reopen |
| 26-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Questioning |
| 10-02-2026 | Questioning |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a witness deposition record (not a final court order) in STC No. 114/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mettur, dated 10.02.2026. Prosecution witness Sivalingam was sworn in and cross-examined regarding the seizure of prohibited food items (gutkha and tobacco products) from a lorry. The witness testified about the vehicle interception, weighing of seized goods, and filing of cases under food safety regulations, though the cross-examination revealed procedural gaps including failure to record statements from the vehicle owner and lack of proper documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a witness deposition record (not a final court order) in STC No. 114/2025 before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Mettur, dated 10.02.2026. Prosecution witness Sivalingam was sworn in and cross-examined regarding the seizure of prohibited food items (gutkha and tobacco products) from a lorry. The witness testified about the vehicle interception, weighing of seized goods, and filing of cases under food safety regulations, though the cross-examination revealed procedural gaps including failure to record statements from the vehicle owner and lack of proper documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts