SAMBHAJI PANDURANG DESAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the applicants have impugned the judgment and order dated 30-8-1991, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1987, maintaining the judgment and order dated 1-10-1987, 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 22-11-1985, 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 far offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 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.