APHC010275672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 944/2019 Between: 1. PONNAGANTI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, KAMMATURU STREET, CHTTAPUR VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. PONNAGATI RAMANAMMA @ VENKATA RAMANA, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, KAMMATURU STREET, CHITTAPUR VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent: 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 16.08.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2019 in S.C.No.90 of 2014 passed by the learned XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nuzvid. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned is dated 16.08.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2019 S.C.No.90 of 2014 passed by the learned XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nuzvid, whereby an application filed for recall of the prosecution witness for cross-examination was allowed. Aggrieved by that order, the 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 adding of charges. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam2, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.3, Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI4, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana5, held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 1 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ 2(2009) 5 SCC 153 3(2001) 7 SCC 401 4(2017) 14 SCC 809 5(1977) 4 SCC 137 3 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. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of six months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 24.07.2026 VTS