APHC010020862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. M/S. KAMAKSHI FERTILIZERS,, DURGI, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR M. ANKHA RAO, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. MAIN ROAD, ROM COMPLEX, DURGI VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. M. ANKHA RAO,, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS. PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KAMAKSHI FERTILIZERS, DURGI MANDAL, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. 1. M/S SRI AMARLINGESWARA CHEMICALS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR THONDAPU PULLESWARA RAO. 2. THE STATE, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to DIRECT the Hon’ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala to complete the trial in C.C.435/2018 as expeditiously within a short period for about four weeks and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 316/2026 M/S. KAMAKSHI FERTILIZERS,, DURGI, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR M. ANKHA RAO, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. MAIN ROAD, ROM COMPLEX, DURGI VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS. PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KAMAKSHI FERTILIZERS, DURGI- VILLAGE DURGI MANDAL, MACHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND M/S SRI AMARLINGESWARA CHEMICALS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR THONDAPU PULLESWARA RAO. THE STATE, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of tition, the High Courtpleased to DIRECT the Hon’ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala to complete the trial in C.C.435/2018 as expeditiously within a short period for about four weeks and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO M/S. KAMAKSHI FERTILIZERS,, DURGI, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR M. ANKHA RAO, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. MAIN ROAD, ROM COMPLEX, DURGI VILLAGE, DURGI MANDAL, S/O. PUNNAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS. PROPRIETOR VILLAGE DURGI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) M/S SRI AMARLINGESWARA CHEMICALS, REP. BY ITS THE STATE, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of tition, the High Courtpleased to DIRECT the Hon’ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala to complete the trial in C.C.435/2018 as 2 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking for a direction to complete the trial against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.435 of 2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala registered for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, “the NI Act”). 2. Heard Sri K.H.V.Siva Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. He would further submit that the case pertains to the year 2018 and nearly six years have elapsed. The petitioners are senior citizens aged about 75 years and are facing trial as accused before the learned trial Court. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to a speedy trial as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is present and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 5. As seen from the record, the petitioners sought expeditious disposal of C.C.No.252 of 2020 on the file of the learned First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, 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-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.” 6. The Hon’ble 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.” 7. 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 Hon’ble 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 5 Constitution of India. The case pertains to the year 2020, whereas the crime was registered in 2013. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.435 of 2018 at the earliest and submit compliance of the same to the Registrar (Judicial). 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, thereto pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 19.01.2026 KKV