S.397(2) CrPC | Order Refusing Additional Evidence At Appellate Stage Is Interlocutory, Revision Not Maintainable: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a criminal revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.
The Court clarified that such an order does not determine the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Dismissing the criminal revision petition, Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum.
The Bench observed:
“In the present case, the order under challenge pertains to the dismissal of an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. Such an order is purely interlocutory in nature and does not determine or affect any substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. squarely applies, which unequivocally provides that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order.”
The case arose after the appellate court rejected the petitioner's application to adduce additional evidence in a pending criminal appeal. The petitioner sought to produce certified copies of certain documents.
The appellate court held that no proper application had been filed under Section 391 CrPC to show that the proposed evidence was essential for a just decision, was unavailable despite due diligence, and was not intended merely to fill gaps in the case.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that rejection of the application deprived her of a valuable right to place material evidence before the appellate court. Relying upon judicial precedents, it was argued that the impugned order was an intermediate order and, therefore, amenable to challenge in revision.
The High Court, however, held that the decision relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable since it concerned an order that substantially affected the rights of the parties.
In contrast, the present order merely rejected an application to adduce additional evidence and did not determine any substantive rights. The Court reiterated that orders relating to receiving documents are interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged through a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum with an appropriate application.
Case Title: Kareti Venkata Vahini v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Revision Case No. 326 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor and Sri Kolluru Giridhar