Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010437412019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1341/2019 Between: 1. PANUGANTI PHANI RAJA SATISH,, S/O P.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEAR R/O MYLAVARAM VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, through Dy.Superintendent of Police, SC 86 ST Cell-I, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR 2. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1341 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 ORDER: There is no representation for the Petitioner. The case of the year 2019 one of the oldest cases pending on the file of this Court. Hence, Mr. Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Petitioner in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard. 2. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, "the Cr.P.C."), challenging the order dated 15.11.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1626 of 2019 in P.R.C.No.15 of 2017 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram, whereby and whereunder a docket order was passed stating “Petitioner/Accused called. Heard the Counsel for the Accused. Perused the record. Matter coming for proclamation. Reason mention in the petition not considered. Hence petition is dismissed”. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory in nature against which no revision lies as per Section 397(2) of „the Cr.P.C.‟ The order impugned is undoubtedly an interim order, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam1, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.2, Girish Kumar 1(2009) 5 SCC 153 2(2001) 7 SCC 401 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1341 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 Suneja v. CBI3, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sethuraman, Bhaskar Industries Ltd.,Girish Kumar Suneja, Amar Nath supra the Criminal Revision case is not maintainable. 5. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 13.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 3(2017) 14 SCC 809 4(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1341 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 124 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1341/2019 Date: 13.07.2026 KMS