APHC010063292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 970/2026 Between: SRI LAKSHMI KUMARI TRADERS, MARKAPURREP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR PABBISETTY LAKSHMI KUMARI,W/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS,R/O. 10TH WARD, VIJAYALAKSHMI STREET,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522241. 2. JAVVAJI VELUGONDAIAH, S/O. SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.9TH WARD, NEAR VIJAYA TALKIES,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523316. 3. PABBISETTY HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. 10 WARD,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523316. 4. MUNDLAPATI ATMA MAHESH, S/O. ANJANEYULU,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. KALYANAPURI, VINUKONDA TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT - 523316. 5. DUDEKULA KHASIM PEERA, S/O. SAIDULU, AGED 31 YEARS,R/O. GANGUPALLI VILLAGE, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523327. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.970 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 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 a direction to the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, to dispose of the case in Crl.M.P.No.1721 of 2022 as early as possible. 2. Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a lady; she is the proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Kumari Traders, Markapur. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1721 of 2022 before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, seeking release of the seized 48,370 kilograms of raw rice contained in 950 bags, which is pending. The learned Trial Court has not been inclined to dispose of the case early. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.970 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 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 seek expeditious disposal of Crl.M.P.No.1721 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.970 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, is directed to dispose of the case in Crl.M.P.No.1721 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, 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: 09.02.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.970 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 108 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 970 of 2026 Date: 09.02.2026 RSI