APHC010545892016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 1669 and 1671 of 2016 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1669 of 2016 Between: Nunna Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep Pp And Another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1669 & 1671 of 2016 Dated 18.03.2025 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1671/2016 Between: Nunna Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep Pp And Another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case Nos.1669 and 1671 of 2016 are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuchas they arise from a common Calendar Case pending before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta. 2. Criminal Revision Case No.1669 of 2016 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the order dated 17.05.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.440 of 2016 in C.C.No.237 of 2015 for dismissing an application filed under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for recall of P.W.1 for his further examination for the purpose of marking the documents 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1669 & 1671 of 2016 Dated 18.03.2025 3. Criminal Revision Case No.1671 of 2016 has been filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.441 of 2016 in C.C.No.237 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta, whereunder an application to receive bank passbooks issued by the State Bank of India, Chilakaluripeta Branch on 03.11.2010 to the petitioner, was dismissed. 4. Sri A.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision submitted that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable. The document sought to be relied on by the petitioner is very much essential to prove his contention and his recall for further examination is required to effectively defend his case and urged to allow the revision cases. 5. Sri Y. Shashank Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the revision cases are not maintainable in view of Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as against the interlocutory order, the revisions are not maintainable and urged to dismiss the revision cases. 6. Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and urged to dismiss the revision cases. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1669 & 1671 of 2016 Dated 18.03.2025 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.440 and 441 of 2016, dated 17.05.2016, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripeta, is correct, legal and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 9. These two revisions have been filed challenging the order of refusal to recall P.W.1 for his further chief examination for the purpose of marking a document i.e., passbook issued by the State Bank of India, Chilakaluripeta Branch dated 03.11.2010 in favor of the petitioner. Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ clearly states that the power of revision conferred under Section 397 (1) shall not be excised a relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, revision, trial, or other proceedings. In view of a clear embargo under Sub-Section 2 of Section 397 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ this Court cannot entertain its’ revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman V. Rajamanickam1 in clear terms held that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to call documents and rejecting the application filed under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ are interlocutory orders and as such the revisions against those 12009 (77) AIC 165 (SC) 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1669 & 1671 of 2016 Dated 18.03.2025 orders are clearly barred under Section 397 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. In view of a clear embargo under Section 397 (2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ this Court cannot interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. For the above reasons, these two Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.03.2025 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.Nos.1669 & 1671 of 2016 Dated 18.03.2025 108 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1669 and 1671 of 2016 Date:18.03.2025 RSI