The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court had the jurisdiction to make the order, the applicant had the opportunity to be heard, and the ownership of the seized logs was determined to belong to the zamindari forest.

Bose, J—This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Raipur under Section 520, Criminal P.C., regarding the disposal of 502 logs of wood seized from the applicant Ibrahim. The first objection taken to the order is that the order having been passed by the Sessions Judge on appeal at a time when an appeal was barred by time, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order. These proceedings are an after-math of a criminal prosecution for conspiracy in which the applicant Ibrahim was convicted. The prosecution alleged that the applicant Ibrahim and others entered into a conspiracy either to steal logs of wood from the zamindari forest of Bindra Navagarh under the Court of Wards or to cheat the Court of Wards in respect of wood extracted from the forest. The first Court convicted the applicant Ibrahim and others on 1-6-1943. On the same date the learned trial Judge made an order under Section 517, Criminal P.C., directing that all wood seized from the zamindari forest be handed over to the Court of Wards while that seized outside the forest be returned to the accused.

2. The applicant Ibrahim and the others, who were convicted, filed an appeal to the appellate Court and it was dismissed on 30-11.1943. Against this a revision was filed here and I dismissed the revision on 29-8-1944. When the appeal was filed no objection was taken by either side to the order under Section 517, nor did the appellate Court deal with this matter when it decided the appeal. Similarly the matter was not touched by me in revision. On 23-4-1945 the Court of Wards made the application out of which the present proceedings arise. It applied to the Sessions Judge under Section 520, Criminal P.C., for annulment of the order dated 1-6-1943 in so far as it related to the wood outside the zamindari forest and asked that that wood be made over to the Court of Wards. The application was granted on 22-8-1945 and it is this order which is now under revision.

3. The first contention, as I have said, is that the appeal to the appellate Court on 23-4-1945 against the order of the trial Court passed on 1-6-1943 was barred by time. Reliance is placed on Article 154, Limitation Act. In my opinion, no question of limitation arises here. Section 517, Cr. P.C., confers power on the criminal Court trying the case to make such order as it thinks fit within the limitations imposed by the section for the disposal etc., of any property produced before it or in its custody ''regarding which any offence appears to have been committed.'' The trial Court in this case made such an order on 1-6-1943. Section 520 then states:

Any Court of appeal... may direct any order under Section 517... passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just.

4. It is argued that the reference to the Court of appeal indicates that an appeal is permissible under Section 517. I am clear that it is not. Section 520 merely confers on the Court of appeal, that is to say, the Court empowered to hear an appeal against an acquittal or conviction in respect of the original trial, certain powers in addition to the powers which it possesses as a Court of appeal hearing the appeal against the conviction or the acquittal. Chapter XXXI of the Code deals with appeals. Section 404 directs that no appeal shall lie except as provided by the Code. Then follow sections which confer rights of appeal on persons whose applications have been dismissed or who are aggrieved by the orders mentioned in the sections that follow. Section 520 does not fall under this Chapter nor does it confer a right of appeal upon anybody. That being the case, there can be no appeal against an order passed under Section 517. All that can happen is that the Court of appeal, that is to say, that Court hearing the appeal against the acquittal or the conviction in the original tr