APHC010026752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 412/2026 Between: 1. KATTEKOTA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, RENTAPALLAVILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALANDAU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE STATEOF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. MARISETTY VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O.RENTAPALLA VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALANDAU DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. ...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 Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to direct the trial Court to conduct speedy trial of the case in Charge Sheet in C.C.No.380 of 2018 pending on the file of the trial Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli and to expedite the trial within a time frame and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOTA KRISHNA DEEPTHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 412/2026 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 to conduct speedy trial in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 324, 506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sate. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. 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.” 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 4. 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.” 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 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 Constitution of India. The case pertains to the year 2018, whereas the crime was registered in 2017. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.380 of 2018 at the earliest and submit compliance of the same to the Registrar (Judicial). 7. 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: 22.01.2026 KKV 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143