LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     09 May 2024

The essential commodities act, 1955

Hello All,

Please clarify on the following.

The main point of contention here is the validity of having two separate seizures documented in a single panchanama

During  vehicle inspections, police apprehended two individuals illegally transporting subsidized rice. Both suspects revealed procuring the rice from a specific Fair Price Shop. The police filed an FIR against all three - the transporters, the shop dealer, and seized the rice and vehicle. Civil Supply inspectors then documented the case in a single panchanama. Following up, they physically verified the shop's stock and found discrepancies exceeding permissible limits. They seized the remaining stock at the shop.  Every thing has been documented in a single panchanama and booked a Case under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

 

the question is it legal to document two separate seizures (police seizure and shop stock seizure) in a single panchanama?

 

The defense lawyer argues that since these are two separate seizures at different locations, the inspectors should have prepared two separate panchanama reports - one for the shop dealer and another for the transporters. The defense is also having objection on the mediators, who were the witnesses both at the police station and the Fair Price Shop

please help



Learning

 12 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate)     09 May 2024

The facts posted suggest the matter to be sub-judice. Let the court decide the issue.

1 Like

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     10 May 2024

Thanks for the reply Venu garu

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     10 May 2024

As rightly observed by expert Mr Venu, Advocate, it is a matter of sub judice.

The defence lawyer may try to protect his clients by his skill and experience on certain loopholes.

The court is  competent to make decision based on the arguments, facts, documentary, material  and eye witnesses.

So allow the proceedings  to be completed and await the verdict of court because these things are based on the practical issues 

1 Like

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     11 May 2024

Kalai Selvan garu thank you very much 

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     11 May 2024

Thank you sir Mr. Vikram Kumar for your appreciations. 

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     11 May 2024

Kalai Selvan garu and Venu garu,  how  should we defend ourselves in the next hearing. We don't have an advocate to argue on our behalf .How can we justify our action, if we are right. As an employee, we have minimum knowledge on legal proceedings.  

P. Venu (Advocate)     11 May 2024

"We don't have an advocate to argue on our behalf" - How this is possible? There is always the Government pleader to prosecute on behalf of the public departments. 

It appears that there are some missing facts. Please post the complete facts bringing out your  locus standi in the matter.
 

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     12 May 2024

Venu garu, case is filed before a quasi judicial authority, 6-A case booked for violating the clauses of T.S. Public Distribution System Control Orders 2016. All we can do is file a case before the competent authority, where as the respondent is given an opportunity to appear either in person or through an advocate.

P. Venu (Advocate)     12 May 2024

"The police filed an FIR against all three"

FIRs having been filed, how is that the matter is before quasi-judicial authority? Who is this quasi-judicial authority - is it the District Collector?

It appears that you are not in the complete knowledge of the facts!

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     13 May 2024

Venu garu police filed an FIR  under relevant sections of IPC against all the three. The department has booked another case against them for violating the clauses of TS PDS control Orders and there is no double jeopardy here. Since Rice is an perishable item, the quasi judicial authority has to take a decision on the Rice Collector (CS) is the quasi judicial authority Sir

P. Venu (Advocate)     13 May 2024

The proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority is not bound by the strict rules or the technicalities of a criminal trial where the allegations are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the alleged defect in the preparation of mahazar is only a technicality and could be overlooked by the authority.

1 Like

Vikram Kumar Saathiri (Government Servant)     15 May 2024

Thank you Venu garu


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register