IMPORTANT POINT
Authorities must adhere to due process and credible evidence before taking action against bio-product manufacturers under IPC and relevant regulatory laws.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents especially the 3rd respondent in registering the case in Crime No.7 of 2017 on the file of the SHO, Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC basing upon the mediatornama dated 5.1.2017 without having any authority and also in violation of law laid down by this Court and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he in business of Bio-products having obtained license from the competent agency and distributing the same in Guntur, Krishna and Prakasham Districts of Andhra Pradesh. On 05.01.2017 the 3rd respondent registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2017 on the file of the S.H.O., Pedakakani Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B r/w.34 of IPC basing upon the mediatornama. It is further stated that the license of the petitioner firm is valid till 2018 and he has godown at his registered place and distributing the Bioproducts which is not at all an offence. Further, on earlier occasion, this petitioner firm approached this Hon'ble Court when agriculture department people harassing them and obtained an order along with others and they have submitted their products as per the orders of this Hon'ble court dated 14.07.2015 in W.P.No.21666 of 2015. It is further stated that this Hon’ble Court time and again directing the concerned authorities to deal with the Bioproducts and in case, prohibited substances was found in any bio-product, liberty was given to them to take action either under the provisions of Insecticides Act 1968 or Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent even registered the case under Sections 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC which is non bailable without there being any complaint which is in violation of the procedure contemplated under law. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that in the present case there is no complaint either from any farmer or from the concerned department, but the 3rd respondent with an intention to harass, foisted the present case against the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is saying that on seeing with naked eye and decided that they are fake and petitioner is selling fake and contra brand bioproducts and cheating the farmers by selling the same to them. He further submits that the petitioner has every right to challenge the illegal and unethical acts of the respondents while availing other remedies available to him under various provisions. He also submits that in similar circumstances this Court has passed an order in WPMP No.47853 of 2016 in WP No.38845 of 2016

5. On perusing the material available on record, it is observed that, in similar circumstances, in a catena of cases, this Court time and again directing the concerned authorities to deal with the Bio-products and in case, prohibited substances was found in any bio-product, liberty was given to them to take action either under the provisions of Insecticides Act 1968 or Fertilizers (Control) Order 1985.

6. In the present case, it is observed that, there is no complaint either from any farmer or from the concerned department, but the 3rd respondent with an intentional to harass the petitioner, foisted the present case against the petitioner. It is also observed that the collection of sample and the process of passing order shall not be resorted to routinely but should be on credible information that the product is causing damage to the public agriculture activity and on prima facie satisfaction of such information only they have to proceed as procedure contemplated under law. Even the 3rd respondent registered the case under S