JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 4.6.1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26/90 passed by Shri V.K. Saxena, First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, arising out of the order dated 9.3.1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Damoh in an unregistered case regarding custody of the seized property i.e. Empty Gas Cylinders. The facts of the case are that in the night of 10.12.1988 one Ghanshyam son of Dwarka Prasad got loaded 5 empty gas cylinders on the Rickshaw of one Premlal for being carried to Jabalpur Naka in Damoh City where his brother's truck was waiting for being loaded with those cylinders. Sub-Inspector Shri Raj Pali intercepted the said rickshaw and the empty gas cylinders were seized. Crime No.89/88 was registered against Premlal the Rickshaw puller for an offence punishable under section 379, I.P.C. and he was arrested. On 30th January, 1989 the police found the rickshaw puller Premlal to be innocent and submitted a Khatma (final) report in the case and released the accused Premlal. The non-applicant No.1 filed an application under section 457, Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Megistrate, First Class for giving custody of those empty gas, cylinders to him. The present applicants as well as the Non-applicant No.1 filed applications for handing over the gas cylinders in their custody till the -final disposal of the case by the police and the Court, but all the applications were rejected on 9.3.1989. But subsequently, its original owner said Shri Ghanshyam Agrawal filed an application for supurdgi of empty gas cylinders. It was allowed on 13.3.89. This order was not challenged by any of the parties. However, the non-applicant No.1 preferred an appeal against the order dated 9.3.1989, which has been allowed. In that appeal said Ghanshyam Agrawal was not made a party. The appellate Court, however, in the absence of Ghanshyam Agrawal had not only set said the order dated 9.3.1989 but also the order dated 13.3.1989 passed in favour of Ghanshyam Agrawal. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the order dated 13.3,1989 having not been challenged becomes final and it cannot set aside by the appellate Court in an appeal against the order dated 9.3.89 only. The other important argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the orders dated 9 .3.1989 or 13.3.1989 were under section 457, Cr.P.C. which were not at all appealable. The other important argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the orders dated 9 .3.1989 or 13.3.1989 were under section 457, Cr.P.C. which were not at all appealable. The appeal filed by the non-applicant No.1 was, therefore, not maintainable and the order passed by the lower appellate Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside suo moto. Submission of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that the appeal against such order is maintainable. He has relied on Food Corporation of India v. Manoharlal [1987 (1) MPWN 148] for the same. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition deserves to be allowed, only on the ground that the order passed by the trial Magistrate under section 457, Cr.P.C. is not at all appealable. It is only revisable. According to section 372, Cr.P .C. no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.1 i.e. Food Corporation of India v. Manoharlal (supra), which was a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Appeal before the lower appellate Court was not competent. The lower appellate Court failed to see and give its finding how the appeal before it against the order of custody under section 457, Cr.P.C. was maintainable. Lower appellate Court has also committed grave error of jurisdiction in setting aside the subsequent order dated 13.3.1989 in the absence of Shri G hanshya.m Agrawal in whose favour order was passed without hearing him. It was also not the subject matter of the appeal. Therefore. the order passed in criminal appeal No.26/90 by Shri V.K. saxena, First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh is illegal and uncalled for and is set aside. The orders passed by the trial Magistrate are maintained. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. If so advised the non-applicants may approach Civil Court to prove his title, etc.