APHC010189592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2810/2026 Between: KAPU HARISCHANDRA REDDY, S/O. LATE K. RAMI REDDY,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O. DOOR NO. 10/69, DODDIMEKALA VILLAGE,PEDDA KADUBURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT,A.P. STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. THE YEMMIGANUR SPINNING MILLS, LTD.,YEMMIGANUR, REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUMEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERAM NEELAPPA. 3. PERAM NEELAPPA, CHAIRMAN CUM EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR, M/S. THE YEMMIGANUR SPINNING MILLSYEMMIGANUR. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: KARUMANCHI DHEERAJ REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2810 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 8the Cr.P.C.9)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), seeking a direction to the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.217 of 2019, as early as possible. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the C.C.No.217 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, wherein at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: <(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limit in spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit in effectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.= 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2810 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026 4. The Hon9ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2, at paragraph No.32 held as under: <32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time- bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.= 5. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner is aged about 61 years and is the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.217 of 2019. The alleged offence is punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is apposite to refer to the Circular issued by this Court on the administrative side in ROC No.126/OPCELL- E/2025 dated 27.06.2025, wherein directions were issued to all the judicial officers in the State to bestow personal attention and expedite the process of hearing and disposal of cases relating to senior citizens on a priority basis. In that regard, the Unit Heads were also directed to submit monthly statements regarding disposal of senior citizen cases on priority. 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2810 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, is directed to expedite the hearing in C.C.No.217 of 2019 and dispose of the same, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) as early as possible. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.04.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2810 of 2026 Dated 09.04.2026 169 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2810 of 2026 Date: 09.04.2026 RSI