APHC010058862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 917/2026 Between: YADALA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O RAMANAIAH,AGE 45 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O D. NO.15-4-25, RAJPUT STREET,SUBEDARPET, NETLORE TOWN,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BYYAPUREDDY VIVEKANANDA REDDY, S/O RAMCHANDRAIAH,AGE 41 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O D.NO.4-4- 188,MUNGAMURI GOPI STREET,LAKSHMISAI NAGAR, NAWABPET,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT-524322. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: DHANUNJAYA BARU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.917 of 2026 Dated 06.02.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking a direction to the learned V Additional District and Sessions-cum-Special SC and ST Court, Nellore, to dispose of Crl.R.P.No.25 of 2024, filed on 05.08.2024, as early as possible. 2. It is submitted that a miscellaneous petition was filed in the above- mentioned revision petition, vide Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2024, seeking stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.139 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition. The said application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Case before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition in Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.No.25 of 2024 may be disposed of as early as possible. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions-cum-Special SC and ST Court, 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.917 of 2026 Dated 06.02.2026 Nellore. 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.” 5. 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.” 6. 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. 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.917 of 2026 Dated 06.02.2026 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned V Additional District and Sessions-cum-Special SC and ST Court, Nellore, is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.570 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.No.25 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, if it is not already disposed of, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 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: 06.02.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.917 of 2026 Dated 06.02.2026 118 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 917 of 2026 Date: 06.02.2026 RSI