Boda Ganga Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 8the Cr.P.C.9)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), seeking fixation of a specific time frame for disposal of Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.58 of 2022, pending before the learned VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Judge, Kadapa (for brevity, 8the learned Trial Court9), by expediting the trial.

¶23

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

¶24

As seen from the record, the Petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of the 8learned Trial Court9. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak¹ , wherein

¶25

at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under:

¶26

<(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.=

¶27

1(1992) 1 SCC 225

¶28

3

¶29

The Hon9ble 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 timebound 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 Hon9ble 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.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 8the learned Trial Court9, is directed to dispose of the case in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.58 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial).

¶34