Sudhanand Dasari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SUDHANAND DASARI, , S/O SWAMIDAS,AGED 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13-55, VIDYANAGAR, ELURUPRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLATNO.204,VAIBHAVTOWER,MUNICIPALEMPLOYEESCOLONY, VIJAYAWADA.

¶10

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI.

¶13

SRI KARUNA KUMAR, ,S/O NUTAN KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS.OCCUPATION PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, NELLORE.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/complainant:

¶16

SINGURU SAI KRISHNA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/accused(S):

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

2

¶20

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3579 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

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 II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.992 of 2025, as early as possible.

¶24

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

¶25

As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of C.C.No.992 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶26

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

¶27

“(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-limit in spite of the Sixth

¶28

1(1992) 1 SCC 225

¶29

3

¶30

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3579 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶31

Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit in effectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.”

¶32

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P² , at paragraph No.32 held as under:

¶33

“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.”

¶34

It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned

¶35

Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and

¶36

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.

¶37

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is directed to expedite the hearing in C.C.No.992 of 2025 and dispose of the same, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) as early as possible.

¶38