K. L. SHRIVASTAVA. J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21. 9. 83 passed under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Codet) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 140 of 1981 whereby the property in question consisting of bails of cloth have been forfeited to the State. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this petition are these Petitioner Girjashankar (P. W. 7) is the Manager of Delhi Gondiya-Kanpur Transport Company, Dewas Naka, Indore. Bails of cloth belonging to one Ahmedabad party were being transported in a truck. The truck was being driven by Ramesh. Babulal (P. W. 4), the owner of the truck was also in the truck. When the property aforesaid was in transit, some miscreants committed theft of some bails, when the then was detected the truck was on the road. Ramesh lodged a report of the occurrence at police station Salsalai. A Crime wall registered and investigation was set afoot. ( 3 ) DURING Investigation, bails of cloth were seized in consequence of the information furnished by the non-applicants Yasin and Bihari. ( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation Yasin and Bihari were both prosecuted for the crime aforesaid. ( 5 ) THE defence of Yasin and Bihari was one of the denial. They made no claim to the property in question. ( 6 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted Yasin and Bihari on the ground that identity of the stolen property has not been established. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances aforesaid, the learned trial Magistrate ordered the property to be confiscated. ( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel in this Court is that on a combined reading of the evidence of Babulal (P. W. 4) and Girjashankar (P. W. 7) in the context of the fact that the persons prosecuted have laid no claim to the property, the proper order to be passed regarding the disposal of the same was one of return of the same to Girjashankar (P. W. 7 ). ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has supported the impugned order, as well-warranted. Shri Siddiqui learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant Yasin has left the matter to the Courts discretion. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has supported the impugned order, as well-warranted. Shri Siddiqui learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant Yasin has left the matter to the Courts discretion. ( 10 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 11 ) A perusal of the provision embodied in section 454 (1) of the Code show that the impugned order regarding disposal of property was appellable before the Court of Session. The provision runs thus: Any person aggrieved by an order made by a Court under section 452 or section 453 may appeal against it to the Court to which appeals ordinarily He from convictions by the former Court. At this stage reference to the provision is lection 401 (4) of the Code is apposite. It is in these terms: Where under this Code in appeal it is and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. It is true that sub-section (5) of section 401 ibid empowers the High Court to treat an application for revision as a petition of appeal but the provisions in the two sub-sections have to be harmoniously construed. It is clear from the express terms of the provision in sub-section (5) that this power or conversion is subject to two conditions one of which is that an appeal lies to the High Court and the party had made the application under the erroneous bell of that no appeal lies thereto and further that it is necessary in the interest of justice to so convert where no appeal lies to the High Court, as in the instant case, there is no question of any erroneous belief in that regard and the High Court cannot treat the revision application as a petition for appeal as no appeal lies thereto. ( 12 ) IN the ultimate analysis in view of the provision extracted above, I find that without going into the merits of the rival contentions, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as barred. ( 13 ) IN the result, the revision petition, being barred under section 40 1 (4) of the Code, is dismissed as incompetent. .