Curgenven, J.

1. The question which arises on the merits of this case is whether a stolen currency note for Rs. 1,000 should be returned to the complainant, who lost it by the theft, or to the innocent third party, from whom it was recovered after passing through a bank. Before, however, coming to the merits, a question of procedure arises. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tanjore, who disposed of the theft case, directed that the note should be returned to the complainant. The subsequent recipient, now the petitioner, appealed against this decision to the District Magistrate, and the case was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore. He held that an appeal lay under the terms of Section 520, Criminal P. C., to the District Magistrate, but that the petitioners appeal was time barred, and no satisfactory explanation had been given of the delay. He, therefore, dismissed it, holding, at the same time, that he could not treat the application as a revision petition. A revision petition is now preferred against this decision to this Court.

2. It appears to me doubtful whether an application made under Section 520 to a "Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or re