Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010109092019 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: 400/2019 Between: 1. G.BALA RAMA MURTHY, BUSINESS,R/O.DEYYAMPADU, MANDAVALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. C NAGESWARA RAO, PROFESSIONAL,R/O.KORUKOLLU, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO 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 28.03.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.802 of 2019 in C.C.No.179 of 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. 2. There is no representation for the Petitioner. Hence, Mr.K.Ranga Srinivas, 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. 3. Heard the learned legal aid counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. The order impugned is dated 28.03.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.802 of 2019 in C.C.No. 179 of 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, whereby an application filed for recalling PW.1 was allowed. Aggrieved by that order the Accused/Petitioner has preferred the Revision Case. 5. 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 the re-calling of PW.1 to clarify the aspect of marking the cheque return memo, which is in favour of the Petitioner. 6. 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 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. 7. 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. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed. However, if the cause survives, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file an appropriate petition seeking quashment of the proceedings. 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 3(2001) 7 SCC 401 4(2017) 14 SCC 809 5(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 400/2019 Date: 13.07.2026 PRA