The essential commodities act, 1955

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

Thanks for the reply Venu garu

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 

Kalai Selvan garu thank you very much 

Thank you sir Mr. Vikram Kumar for your appreciations. 

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.  

"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.
 

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.

"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!

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

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.

Thank you Venu garu