APHC010462032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1029/2026 Between: 1. HOLLAND WHARFS GIRLS HOSTEL TRUST, DOOR NO. 17-2- 5,NEAR SIVALAYAM, RUSTUMBADA,NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,REP. BY ITS CHAIRMANSRI GEDDAM EJJI BABU, S/O. SIMEON,NARSAPUR RURAL P.S.LIMITS ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI 2. M COLIN JOSHI, S/O. M. JOSEPH JOSHIH.N0.15-1-48/A,MISSION HIGH SCHOOL ROADNEAR SDA CHURCHNARSAPUR. W.G.DT.MOBILE NO. 8928159979 NARSAPUR TOWN P.S. LIMITS 3. M SANTHOSHAM, W/O. M. JOSEPH JOSHIFORMER SUPERINTENDENT OF HOLLAND WHARFS GIRLS HOSTELH. N0.15-1-48/A,MISSION HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,NEAR SDA CHURCH NARSAPUR, W.G.DT.MOBILE NO.9989708555NARSAPUR TOWN P.S. LIMITS 4. M JOSEPH ALIAS JOSHI, S/O. LATE. VENKANNARETD. FINANCE MANAGER IN BETHESDA LEPROSY HOSPITALH. NO. 15-1- 48/A.MISSION HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,NEAR SDA CHURCHNARSAPUR, W.G.DT.MOBILE NO.9989708555NARSAPUR TOWN P.S. LIMITS ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1029 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RONALD RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 order dated 19.06.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3698 and 3699 of 2026 in C.C. No. 120 of 2022 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, whereby the two applications filed for recall and reopen the evidence of P.W.2, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory in nature against which no revision lies as per Section 397(2) of „the Cr.P.C.‟ 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, held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses 1(2009) 5 SCC 153 2(2001) 7 SCC 401 3(2017) 14 SCC 809 4(1977) 4 SCC 137 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1029 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 4. 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. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 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: 03.09.2026 KMS 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1029 of 2026 Dated 03.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1029/2026 Date: 03.09.2026 KMS