Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010093532019 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: 427/2019 Between: 1. C.NAGAMALLESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. JAYAPRAKASH COLONY, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI 2. T SRINIVASULU, S/O,. CHENNAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. LAWYERPET, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 challenging the interlocutory order dated 02.08.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.3511 of 2018 in C.C.No.285 of 2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Judge, Ongole. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned is dated 02.08.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.3511 of 2018 in C.C.No.285 of 2017, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class‑cum‑Excise Judge, Ongole, whereby an application filed under Sections 243(2) and 247 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ seeking to receive documents and mark them on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused was allowed subject to proof and relevancy. Aggrieved by that order the Accused/Petitioner has preferred the Revision Case. 4. Indeed, a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable as per Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The order impugned is undoubtedly an interim order, as it merely allowed an application filed for receiving certain documents on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam2, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.3, Girish Kumar Suneja 1 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ 2(2009) 5 SCC 153 3(2001) 7 SCC 401 3 v. CBI4, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana5, 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. 6. 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. 7. On further perusal of the e‑Courts case status report, it is noted that C.C.No.285 of 2017, on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class‑cum‑Excise Judge, Ongole, has been disposed of. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. 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 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4(2017) 14 SCC 809 5(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 89 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 427/2019 Date: 13.07.2026 PRA