( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the judgment d 21-9-1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Daksdiina Kannada, Mangalore, in Crl App No. 43 of 1977. By the said judgment the order of confiscation d 21-5-77 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mangalore, confiscating the lorry bearing registration No. KLC 7975 belonging to the respondent-Narayana Iyer was set aside. ( 2 ) THE order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer is in exercise of his powers under Secs. 71a (1) and 71b (1) and (2) of the Karnataka forest Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 3 ) THE orders so passed by such Officer are appealable under S. 71d of the Act. Sec. 71d of the Act reads as follows :" 71d. Appeal- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under Sec. 71a or Sec. 71c may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the; Dist Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized and the Dist Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, pass such order as he may think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. (2) An order of the Dist Judge under sub-sec (1) shall be final. "it is clear from Sec. 71d of the Act that an appeal lies to a Dist Judge and not to a Sessions Judge. A reference to the appeal memo filed by the respondent in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Dakshins kannada, Mangalore, shows that he preferred the appeal to the district and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The learned District and Sessions Judge has got it numbered as Crl App No. 43 of 1977. Much cannot be made out of this way of registration, because it is the same person who exercises his powers as Dist judge and as well as Sessions Judge. Anyhow, the law is that appeal lies to a District Judge. Hence, it would be just and proper to understand the judgment in question as having been passed by the District Judge, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. ( 4 ) ANY judgment or order passed by the Dist Judgs would not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it would be just and proper to understand the judgment in question as having been passed by the District Judge, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. ( 4 ) ANY judgment or order passed by the Dist Judgs would not fall within the purview of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is because of this that no reference is made to such orders and judgment of a District Judge under Sees. 397 and 401 of the Crlpc relating to, the revisional jurisdiction of this Coiurt; but this revision petition has been filed under the said provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am clearly of opinion that this revision petition is misconceived in view of the aforementioned facts and reasons. The Criminal Revision Petition is not maintainable in law. In the result, this revision petition is rejected, as not maintainable. --- *** --- .