THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. Rajamanickam2
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 13 Jul 2026
- Bench
- Y LAKSHMANA RAO
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. 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…
- Para 88. 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.…
Judgment
Cause title
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:
ORDER:
2 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.
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.
Heard the learned legal aid counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
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.
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.
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.
In view of laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Sethuraman, Bhaskar Industries Ltd.,Girish Kumar Suneja, Amar Nath supra the Criminal Revision case is not maintainable.
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. Dt: 13.07.2026 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Jul 2026. The bench was Y LAKSHMANA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.