Reserved on : 13.10.2025 Delivered on : 30.10.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025

Mahant Yogi Laxmi ......Revisionist

Vs.

Gyanendra Singh Bisht …..Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the Revisionist. Mr. S. K. Mandal, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J

1. The present Criminal Revision No. 322 of 2025 has been filed by Mahant Yogi Laxmi, Revisionist, assailing the judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2023 (Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht), whereby the appeal filed by the Revisionist was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barkot/Purola, District Uttarkashi in Complaint Case No. 01 of 2020 was

affirmed.

2. By the said order, the Revisionist was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₹5,08,000, of which ₹5,03,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The learned Sessions Court, after evaluating the record and evidence, upheld both the conviction

and sentence.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant, Gyanendra Singh Bisht, alleged that the accused–Revisionist, Mahant Yogi

Laxmi, had borrowed ₹4,00,000 in cash on 27.09.2016 for personal needs. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued two cheques drawn on his account with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, EC Road Branch, Dehradun —

a. Cheque No. 087910 dated 02.11.2019 for ₹3,50,000, and b. Cheque No. 087911 dated 02.11.2019 for ₹50,000.

4. Both cheques were presented by the complainant through his banker, Punjab National Bank, Barkot Branch, but were dishonoured on

13.11.2019 with the remark “Payment stopped by drawer.”

5. The complainant, through learned counsel, issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2019, demanding payment within fifteen days. The notice was dispatched through registered post but was returned with the postal endorsement “refused by addressee.” No reply was submitted, nor was the payment made by the accused.

6. On these facts, the complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 01 of 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Upon being summoned, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded that his cheque book had been lost on 01.10.2019, in respect of which he had allegedly informed the Superintendent of Police, Uttarkashi, and his banker.

7. During the trial, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and produced the original cheques, dishonour memos, postal receipts, and tracking reports. The accused examined himself (DW-1) and one Virendra Khanduri (DW-2), his driver, to support the claim of lost cheques. However, the trial court found significant contradictions between the testimonies of the accused and his witness regarding the date, location, and vehicle involved in the alleged loss.

8. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate held that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stood unrebutted. The defence version was found to be improbable, inconsistent, and unsupported by cogent material. Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

9. The appellate court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court and held that there was neither perversity nor legal infirmity in the conclusion drawn. It was observed that the cheques had been issued towards a legally enforceable debt, that the statutory notice had been duly dispatched and refused by the accused, and that the presumptions under the Act remained un-rebutted.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. Learned counsel for the Revisionist, Mr. Pawan Mishra, submitted that both the courts below erred in appreciating the evid