JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---By this revision, the applicants have impugned the judgment and order dated 30-8-91, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1987, maintaining the judgment and order dated 1-10-87, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan, releasing the Muddemal article i.e. motor-cycle to respondent No. 3, its original owner. 2.The facts in brief are as under :--- The complainant Jagannath (respondent No. 2) who claimed to be the owner of the motor-cycle (Muddemal) agreed to sell the same to applicant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 14,500/-. On 22-11-85, applicant No. 2 paid earnest money to the tune of Rs. 200/- to respondent No. 2 who gave him the custody of the vehicle on the condition that on the same day, applicant No. 2 would pay the balance amount. Since the applicant No. 2 did not pay the balance amount, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the applicants for offences punishable under sections 406,420 read with 34 of I.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the applicants were tried in the trial Court which acquitted them for the said offence but directed that the motor-cycle in question be handed over to the original owner Lalsingh Baldevsingh. The applicants challenged the part of the order directing that the motor-cycle be returned to the original owner by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1987. As mentioned in para 1, the said appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision. 3.I have heard Mr. R.S. Mohite for the applicants, Mr. D.T. Palekar for respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.K. Raje for respondent No. 2. Although respondent No. 3 was served but he did not put his appearance. In my view, the impugned order calls for no interference. 4.The trial Court was persuaded to release the motor-cycle in favour of respondent No. 3 on the ground that neither the applicants nor the complainant (Respondent No. 2) was entitled to its possession. In para 7 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has observed that the applicants have not produced any documents to show that they have paid Rs. 7,200/- to the complainant. The trial Court was not inclined to believe their mere word for the same, particularly when the complainant had denied this payment. In para 7 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has observed that the applicants have not produced any documents to show that they have paid Rs. 7,200/- to the complainant. The trial Court was not inclined to believe their mere word for the same, particularly when the complainant had denied this payment. The trial Court was not inclined to give possession of the motor-cycle to complainant (Respondent No. 2) because the said respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that the motor-cycle had not been transferred in his name even till the time he gave his evidence. The trial Court felt that since the motor-cycle was still in the name of respondent No. 3 and as it had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title, the proper course would be that the possession of the motor-cycle be given to the respondent No. 3 till the question of ownership was decided by the Civil Court. 5.The order of the trial Court and that of the Appellate Court which upheld it, in my view is correct. I am seized of the matter in a revision. It is well settled that in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court interferes with the impugned order only if there is a manifest illegality resulting in failure of justice and prejudice to the party which comes before it. In my view, the impugned order is warranted by considerations of justice. I find the same to be proper in the circumstances of the case. In my view, the trial Court was perfectly justified in passing that order. Since the order of the trial Court was correct, the Appellate Court was justified in not interfering with it in the appeal. 6.In the result, this revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Revision application dismissed.