Uttarakhand High Court
Mahant Yogi Laxmi vs Gyanendra Singh Bisht on 30 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9581
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
1
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
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.
2
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
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 evidence and in
failing to consider material contradictions which went to the root of the case.
12. It was contended that the Revisionist had never issued the
cheques in question in discharge of any legally enforceable liability. The
cheque book containing the said cheques was stated to have been lost on
01.10.2019, for which intimation was duly given to the Superintendent of
Police, Uttarkashi, and to the bank concerned, prior to the date of
presentation. Despite this, the Respondent and his relatives allegedly misused
those lost cheques, resulting in three separate complaints being filed at
different places. Learned counsel argued that such multiplicity of proceedings
clearly revealed a mala fide intent and deliberate misuse of the lost
instruments.
3
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
13. Learned counsel for the Revisionist further submitted that the
complainant-Respondent failed to prove the existence of any legally
enforceable debt or liability. It was contended that no document, agreement,
receipt, or independent witness was produced to establish that a sum of
₹4,00,000 had ever been advanced to the Revisionist. Learned counsel argued
that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 stood effectively rebutted by cogent defence evidence.
14. In support thereof, the Revisionist examined himself and
produced his driver, Virendra Khanduri (DW-2), who corroborated the
alleged loss of the cheque book. Despite this, both the learned Trial Court and
the Appellate Court, without recording any specific finding on the issue of
rebuttal, proceeded to convict the Revisionist solely on the strength of
presumptions.
15. Learned counsel submitted that in a similar complaint filed by
one Manveer Singh Bisht, relating to another cheque from the same lost
cheque book, the Appellate Court had acquitted the Revisionist, accepting his
defence as genuine. It was argued that the present conviction, resting on
identical facts, is inconsistent with the earlier finding and therefore
unsustainable. It was further contended that the complaint was filed against
two persons, namely (i) Mahant Yogi Laxmi in his personal capacity, and (ii)
Mahant Yogi Laxmi as President of the Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva
Samiti.
16. It was submitted that Mahant Yogi Laxmi had thus been arrayed
as an accused in two distinct capacities, first, in his personal capacity, and
second, as President of the Bhagwan Jagannath Mandir Seva Samiti, which is
the governing body responsible for the management and service activities of
the temple. It was further pointed out that the appeal had been preferred only
by the first accused in his individual capacity.
4
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
17. Since no appeal had been filed by the Samiti, the judgment had
attained finality as against the institution. Learned counsel contended that the
continuation of proceedings in such circumstances suffered from a
jurisdictional irregularity and was not maintainable in its present form. A
prayer was, therefore, made to set aside the conviction and sentence, and to
stay the realization of fine or compensation imposed during the pendency of
the present revision.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr. S.K. Mandal,
opposed the revision and supported the concurrent findings of the courts
below. It was submitted that the conviction was based upon sound evidence
and proper appreciation of the material on record. The original cheques, bank
return memos, legal notice, postal receipts, and acknowledgment reports were
duly proved by the complainant, thereby fulfilling the statutory ingredients of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
19. Both the courts below, upon independent scrutiny, found that the
cheques were issued towards the discharge of a subsisting liability, were
dishonoured for the reason "payment stopped by drawer," and that statutory
notice had been duly served. It was therefore argued that these concurrent
findings of fact are not liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the
plea of loss of cheques was an afterthought, unsupported by any authentic
contemporaneous record or bank acknowledgment. It was contended that the
Revisionist had failed to prove either the alleged loss or the lodging of any
credible complaint in that regard. The testimony of DW-2, on which the
defence relied, was stated to be contradictory and unreliable. Learned counsel
also pointed out that the complaint had been instituted against both the
individual and the Samiti, and since the appeal had been preferred only by
5
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
one of them, namely Mahant Yogi Laxmi in his personal capacity, the
conviction as against the Samiti had attained finality.
21. At this juncture, this Court finds that the central question for
determination is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the courts
below suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
22. The further issue arises as to whether proceedings under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be sustained against the
Revisionist in his capacity as trustee or president of a religious trust, without
impleading the trust itself as an accused.
23. It is settled that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not
permit re-appreciation of evidence except where the findings are manifestly
unreasonable or based on a clear misreading of material on record.
Interference is justified only in cases of procedural irregularity or gross
miscarriage of justice.
24. From the record, it is evident that the complainant duly proved all
foundational facts to attract the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Act. The cheques in question were drawn on the account of the
Revisionist, presented within time, and dishonoured with the endorsement
"payment stopped by drawer." The statutory notice was also proved to have
been issued within the prescribed period. Once these ingredients were
established, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption by
showing a probable defence.
25. The Revisionist asserted that his cheque book had been lost and
that the cheques were subsequently misused. However, the evidence adduced
in support of this plea was inconsistent and lacking in credibility. The alleged
date and place of loss were narrated differently by the Revisionist and his
6
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
witness. No acknowledgment from either the police or the bank was
produced to substantiate the claim of prior intimation. The letter purportedly
addressed to the Superintendent of Police bore no proof of dispatch or diary
entry. The courts below, therefore, rightly held that the defence was neither
probable nor convincing.
26. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be displaced by mere denial or by assertions
unsupported by substantive evidence. In the present case, the defence rested
solely on oral statements, uncorroborated by any contemporaneous record
lending them authenticity. The statutory presumption, therefore, remained un-
rebutted.
27. As to the contention that the complaint was not maintainable
without impleading the trust, it may be observed that a trust, unlike a
company or society, functions through its trustees, who are answerable for
acts done on its behalf. The cheques having been signed by the Revisionist
himself, the proceedings against him were maintainable in law. The plea of
defect of parties was, therefore, rightly rejected.
28. The argument that the present case stood on parity with another
complaint in which the Revisionist was acquitted also holds no substance.
Each cheque transaction gives rise to a distinct cause of action. Unless
identical evidence and circumstances are shown, the result of another
complaint cannot govern the present case.
29. The record further indicates that both the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court duly considered the defence evidence and recorded reasoned
findings, noting material inconsistencies and absence of corroborative proof.
7
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:9581
30. This Court thus finds no perversity, illegality, or error apparent on
the record in the concurrent findings of the courts below that would warrant
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
complainant successfully established all essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that the
findings of guilt are based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence.
ORDER
In light of the above findings, this Court finds no infirmity or
perversity in the judgments under challenge. The complainant has duly
proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, whereas the Revisionist failed to rebut the statutory
presumption or to establish any credible defence.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 322 of 2025 is dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Uttarkashi, in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2023, affirming the
judgment and order dated 22.05.2023 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Barkot/Purola, District Uttarkashi, in Complaint Case No. 01 of 2020,
convicting the Revisionist under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, are hereby upheld.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
SHIKSHA
SB
BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.10.30 14:18:12 +05'30'
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 322 OF 2025-----------Mahant Yogi Laxmi v. Gyanendra Singh Bisht
Ashish Naithani J.
