Katta Dinakar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

KATTA DINAKAR REDDY, S/O.SUDHARSHAN REDDY,AGED 44 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE,R/O.N.S.W 2151, AUSTRALIA C/O M/S.M.M.M. SRINIVASA RAO 13601, ,ADVOCATES, HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, AMARAVATHI.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO CID PS MANGALAGIRIREPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

SMT LINGAMANENI PRATHIBHA, W/O.DINAKAR REDDYAGE 39 YEARS , R/O.33-20-6/A, CH.V.K.STREET,SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

2

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

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 dispose of Crl.M.P.No.1801 of 2025 in C.C.No.653 of 2017. The said petition was filed under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against Petitioner/Accused No.1 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’), as soon as possible.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶24

As seen from the record, initially there was C.C.No.1005 of 2011, wherein the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.653 of 2017 on 21.09.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing in Australia. It is further submitted that proceedings against Accused No.4 were quashed by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 in Crl.P.No.7399 of 2019. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Crl.M.P.No.1801 of 2025 in C.C.No.653 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The Hon’ble Apex Court

¶25

3

¶26

in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak¹ , at paragraph No.86 (10) held as

¶27

under:

¶28

“(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.”

¶29

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v.

¶30

State of U.P² at paragraph No.32 held as under:

¶31

“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.”

¶32

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

¶33

Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra . However, the right to speedy disposal is one

¶34

of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶35