State government rep by Food Safety Officer,Udumalpet vs A.Ramanathan — 666/2019
Case under Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 Section 59(i). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th April 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTI170009222019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
922/2019
Filing Date
07-11-2019
Registration No
666/2019
Registration Date
08-11-2019
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State government rep by Food Safety Officer,Udumalpet
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
A.Ramanathan
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted A. Ramanathan (defendant), a bakery owner, of charges under Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Section 59(i), finding that the government failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. While the food analyst's report confirmed that tea dust samples contained unauthorized artificial coloring agents (making them "unsafe"), the court noted critical procedural failures including: massive delays in analysis (10+ months instead of the mandated 14 days), failure to examine the food analyst as a witness, contradictory testimonies from government witnesses, and insufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly sold unsafe food. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court acquitted A. Ramanathan (defendant), a bakery owner, of charges under Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Section 59(i), finding that the government failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. While the food analyst's report confirmed that tea dust samples contained unauthorized artificial coloring agents (making them "unsafe"), the court noted critical procedural failures including: massive delays in analysis (10+ months instead of the mandated 14 days), failure to examine the food analyst as a witness, contradictory testimonies from government witnesses, and insufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly sold unsafe food. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts