APHC010075842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1200/2026 Between: B KAMAKSHI DEVI, W/O B.KANTHARAO, AGE 50 YRS, OCC LECTRURER O/O SRI CHAITANYA JUNIOR COLLEGE, TANAPALLI ROAD RAMANAIHA GARDENS, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI. 2. P SREE HARI, S/O P.PERUMALNAIDU, AGE 62 YRS, OCC NOT KNOWN, R/O FLAT NO.102, CS JASMINIUM APARTMENT, SRI PADMAVATHI NAGAR, BANK COLONY, KARAKAMBADI ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: R SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 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 to quash the impugned docket order in C.F.No.44 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.14 of 2026 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr. V. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Sudha Rani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was a delay in transmission of the record to the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. In that view of the matter, the order dated 22.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, be directed to dispose of the application filed under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’. It is submitted further that the appeal was preferred on 07.01.2026 along with an application under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’ and any delay caused in transmission of the record from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, to the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 4. Per contra, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, suffers from no illegality or irregularity warranting interference under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/ Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’. It is argued that the petitioner was convicted on 16.12.2025 in C.C.No.1091 of 2024 and the Trial Court had granted suspension of sentence up to 12.01.2026, after which no subsisting suspension order existed. Therefore, once the suspension expired, the petitioner, being a convicted person, could not remain at large, and the learned Sessions Court rightly directed her to surrender before the learned Trial Court before seeking any further relief under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS.’ The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the law does not permit an accused to bypass the mandatory requirement of surrender merely on the ground of administrative delay in transmission of records between Courts. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that procedural delay in transmission of the file from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, to the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, cannot be invoked by the petitioner as a defence to avoid compliance with statutory requirements. The obligation to surrender is cast upon the convicted accused, and unless such surrender takes place, the learned Appellate Court is not empowered to consider a fresh application 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 for suspension of sentence. It is therefore argued that the learned Sessions Judge acted strictly in accordance with law in directing the petitioner to surrender first and then move an application under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’, and hence the petitioner has not made out any grounds to seek quashing of the docket order in C.F.No.44 of 2026. 6. On perusal of the record, the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, by judgment dated 16.12.2025 in C.C.No.1091 of 2024, convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced her to undergo four months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, who made over the case to the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, for hearing and disposal. 7. The learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, by order dated 22.01.2026, observed that there was no suspension of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court after 12.01.2026 and that the petitioner, being a convict, cannot remain at large. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court and thereafter to file an application under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’/Section 389(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ seeking suspension of sentence. 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 8. Indeed, the calendar case judgment was passed on 16.12.2025 and the suspension of sentence granted by the Trial Court would be operative only for a period of one month, i.e., till 15.01.2026, as per Section 389 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 430(1) of ‘the ‘BNSS’. 9. Of course, procedure is the handmaid of Justice as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anvita Auto Tech Works (P) Ltd. v. Aroush Motors1, wherein it is observed in paragraph No.2 that the essence of the issue is aptly captured in the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who emphasized that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ICAR National Research Center of Plant Biotechnology v. Azad Singh Dagar2, wherein it is observed in paragraph No.6 that procedure is the handmaid of justice and technicalities must not be allowed to infringe upon the substantive rights of the parties. 11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge shall take into consideration the delay caused in transmission of the record, which is administrative in nature, and ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to hardship on that account. If the petitioner surrenders before the learned 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2181 2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5892 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 Magistrate as directed, the learned Magistrate may not be in a position to pass any order after expiry of thirty days, as the Magistrate would have no power thereafter to suspend the sentence as per Section 430(3) of ‘the BNSS’/Section 389(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 12. Therefore, the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for suspension of sentence in C.C. No.1091 of 2024 in accordance with law. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application filed under Section 430(1) of ‘the BNSS’/ Section 389(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in accordance with law. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.02.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1200 of 2026 Dated 16.02.2026 91 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1200 of 2026 Date: 16.02.2026 RSI