Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010417752019 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: 1295/2019 Between: 1. THUMMALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, S/O T.REDDEPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.3- 665 (UPSTAIRS), LBS ROAD, PILER TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI. 2. M JANARDHANA REDDY, S/O M.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-28/ 1, REDDY 86 REDDY COLONY, TIRUPATHI ROAD, PILER TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY 2. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1295 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 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, K. Diwakar Reddy, 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 present 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 24.09.2019 passed in S.T.C. No.75 of 2016 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler, whereby, on a memo filed by the learned counsel for P.W.1, the earlier chief-examination affidavit filed by the petitioner/complainant was eschewed and the subsequently filed chief-examination affidavit of P.W.1 was taken on record for proceeding with the case. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order against the an interlocutory order 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. 1(2009) 5 SCC 153 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1295 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.2, Girish Kumar 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 2(2001) 7 SCC 401 3(2017) 14 SCC 809 4(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1295 of 2019 Dated 13.07.2026 123 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1295/2019 Date: 13.07.2026 KMS