APHC010165282020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 314/2020 Between: 1. DEVARAPU VENKATESWARLU @ ISKAPALLI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KAMMA BY CASTE, R/O LAKSHMI NAGAR, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN N/O NARRAWADA VILLAGE, DUTHALURU MANDAL, SPS NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Inspector of Police, IV Town P.S. Nellore Town, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of AP, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 challenging the docket order dated 20.03.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2020 in C.C.No.184 of 2017 passed by the 1 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ 2 learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nellore whereby and whereunder an application filed under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the prosecution to reopen the trial and recall LW.4 was allowed. 2. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned dated 20.03.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.122 of 2020 C.C.No.184 of 2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nellore, whereby an application filed to reopen the trial and recall LW.4 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 to reopen the trial and recall LW.4. 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. 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: 05.08.2026 VTS