APHC010043402026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 660/2026 Between: 1.SRI VEGI VIJAYA EVNKATA RAMA JOGI SURYA VARA PRASAD, SON OF VENU GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-111, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, GUNNAMPALLI VILLAGE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.SRI AYINAPUDI BALA SUBRAHMANYAM, SON OF JAN MOHAN RAO, AGED 41 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 8-32, AMBERPETA VILLAGE, BHIMADOLE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, A.P. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.660 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 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 dispose of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.350 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. 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 sought expeditious disposal of C.C.No.350 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.660 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 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.” 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.660 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 District, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.350 of 2024 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: 31.01.2026 PRA 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.660 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 55 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.660 of 2026 Date: 31.01.2026 PRA