THE STATE OF AP v. Rajamanickam2
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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…
Judgment
Cause title
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.
Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
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.
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.
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.
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 05 Aug 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.