LAWS(APH)-2024-6-52

MEDA HARI KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

Decided On June 18, 2024
MEDA HARI KRISHNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF A.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Ss. 420, 120-B r/w 34 IPC basing upon the mediatornama dtd. 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 5/1/2017 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 Ss. 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 Bio- products 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 dtd. 14/7/2015 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 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. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent even registered the case under Ss. 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.