APHC010007992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 664/2026 Between: 1. N. SANJEEVA REDDY, CHECKPOST, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AP 2. SMT.N. SUJATHA,, W/O SRI.N.SANJEEVA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF H.NO.87- 1400-99-3, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, NANDYAL CHECKPOST, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AP. 3. SAI UDAY REDDY,, S/O SRI.N.SANJEEVA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS. RESIDENT OF H.NO.87- 1400-99-3, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, NANDYAL CHECKPOST, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AP. 4. MISS YASASWINI,, D/O SRI.N.SANJEEVA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS. RESIDENT OF H.NO.87- 1400-99-3, DHANALAKSHMI NAGAR, NANDYAL ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M B THIMMA REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), challenging the interlocutory order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2023 in Cr.No.10/RCA‑KUR/2019 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE/ACB Cases, Kurnool, in an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned dated 12.08.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2023 in Cr.No.10/RCA‑KUR/2019, merely directed the Petitioners to take part in the proceedings initiated under Section 457 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ at the behest of the Respondent. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Petitioners have preferred the present Revision Case. 4. Indeed, a revision against an 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 required the Petitioners to participate in the proceedings under Section 457 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ initiated by the Respondent. 3 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam1, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. 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. 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 Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 10.08.2026 PRA 1(2009) 5 SCC 153 2(2001) 7 SCC 401 3(2017) 14 SCC 809 4(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 17 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 664/2026 Date: 10.08.2026 PRA