APHC010387812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7889/2025 Between: 1.SUPREME AGENCIES, GUNTUR, SUPREME AGENCIES, GUNTUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MITTAPALLI ADINARAYANA GUPTHA S/O. PANDURANGA RAO, 2.MITTAPALLI ADINARAYANA GUPTA, MITTAPALLI ADINARAYANA GUPTHA S/O. PANDURANGA RAO ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.M/S HANUMAN FRIED GRAM DHALL MILLS, ADDANKI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER CHALUVADI SUBBARAMAIAH, S/O. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, R/O. SBI COLONY, ADDANKI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMRAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.HARANADHARAJU KATTA 2.HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1.PRADEEP KUMAR A 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The short grievance of the Petitioners is that the learned Magistrate instead of adopting the procedure as contemplated under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the N.I.Act’) by taking the case as a summary trial as conducting summons procedure trial. 3. In that regard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re1, wherein at paragraph No.24 it is held as under: “24. The upshot of the above discussion leads us to the following conclusions: 24.1. The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial. 24.2. Inquiry shall be conducted on receipt of complaints under Section 138 of the Act to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 24.3. For the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. 24.4. We recommend that suitable amendments be made to the Act for provision of one trial against a person for multiple offences under Section 138 of the Act committed within a period of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Code. 24.5. The High Courts are requested to issue practice directions to the trial courts to treat service of summons in one complaint under Section 1 (2021) 16 SCC 116 3 138 forming part of a transaction, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonour of cheques issued as part of the said transaction. 24.6. The judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] and Subramanium Sethuraman [Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 13 SCC 324 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 242] have interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that there is no inherent power of trial courts to review or recall the issue of summons. This does not affect the power of the trial court under Section 322 of the Code to revisit the order of issue of process in case it is brought to the court's notice that it lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint. 24.7. Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act and findings to the contrary in Meters & Instruments [Meters & Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 : (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 405 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 477] do not lay down correct law. To conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the Act empowering the trial courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under Section 138 shall be considered by the Committee constituted by an order of this Court dated 10-3-2021 [Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 354] . 24.8. All other points, which have been raised by the Amici Curiae in their preliminary report and written submissions and not considered herein, shall be the subject-matter of deliberation by the aforementioned Committee. Any other issue relating to expeditious disposal of complaints under Section 138 of the Act shall also be considered by the Committee.” 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sai Bhaskar Irons Ltd., v. State of A.P2 in wherein the learned Single Judge after perusal of the entire record, without going into the merits of the case, directed the learned Magistrate therein to register the case as a summary trial instead of a calendar case for summons trial. The relevant paragraph No.5 is extracted as under: “5. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Criminal Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to register the case as summary trial case, instead of Calendar Case for summons trial; accordingly, proceed with the trial following summary trial procedure and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as the matter 2 Crl.P.No.4831/2023 4 pertains to the year, 2018. However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to take a decision as per law, during trial proceedings of the case to convert the case from summary trial to summons case by recording reasons, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment.” 5. In the instant case also, the learned Magistrate has registered the case as a summons case by giving Calendar case vide C.C.No.211/2020 against the spirit of Section 143 of ‘the N.I.Act.,’ and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re Supra. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case directing the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki to register the instant case as summary case instead of a Calendar Case for summons trial and proceed with the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges this Court fervently that a time schedule may be fixed to the learned Trial Court for disposal of the case inasmuch as the learned Trial Court commenced the trial by examining P.W.1 in chief. 8. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak3, 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 3(1992) 1 SCC 225 5 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P4 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.” 10. 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. However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to take any decision in accordance with proviso of Section 143 of ‘the N.I.Act’ during the trial proceedings to convert the case from summary trial to summons case by recording appropriate reasons. 11. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the learned Trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible and submit a report to the Registrate (Judicial). 4AIROnline 2024 SC 143 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date: 05.02.2026 VTS