APHC010007882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 217/2025 Between: Gajula Gopinath @ Gopi and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): J. Ravi Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners have filed the criminal revision case challenging the order dated 15.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.220 of 2024 in S.C.No.54 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the petition filed to receive certain documents was allowed subject to all legal objections by the defence. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 3. As per Section 397(2) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ criminal revision would not lie against an interlocutory order passed by any Court. In this regard the Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd v. Bhiwani Denim1, wherein at Para Nos.8, 9 and 10 held as under: “8…The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by this Court through a series of decisions is this: if the contention of the petitioner who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole culminate? If they would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage. 9. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra laid down the following test: (SCC p. 560, para 15) “[A]n order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2).” This was upheld by the four-Judge Bench of this Court in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI. 10. The above position was reiterated in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. Again in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat this Court stated thus: (SCC p. 201, para 11) “It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam. 1 (2001) 7 SCC 401 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable”. 4. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam2, at Para No.5 held as under: “5…The orders passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. Therefore, both the orders i.e. one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed”. 5. In view of the above, since the order impugned is an interlocutory order as it enabled to receive certain documents, the criminal revision case is not at all maintainable as per Section 397(2) of „the Cr.P.C‟. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 6. The learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is directed to dispose of the S.C.No.54 of 2019 as early as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months. No order as to costs. 2 (2009) 5 SCC 153 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 16.07.2025 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.217 of 2025 Dated 16.07.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 217 of 2025 16.07.2025 W KMS