Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 6, 138, 141

We are of the view that the operation of section 138 of the Act, 1881 cannot be obstructed or, in any way, circumvented by the mere fact of filing of a suit by the drawer of the dishonoured cheque in civil Court whatever allegations may be in the plaint about the same and the relief prayed for therein, because such a device shall totally make the section itself nugatory. However, if a holder or the payee gets hold of a dishonoured cheque by fraudulent means or forgery, the drawer of the cheque shall have the liberty to take such defence during the trial. Consequently we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division. This petition is dismissed. …Arif-Uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 614] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 79 & 80

Section 79 provides for interest when it is expressly made payable on a promissory note or a bill of exchange, and section 80 provides that the rate of interest would be 6% per annum, when no rate of interest is specified in the instrument. [Para-12J Sonali Bank Vs. M/S. Karnaphuli Works Ltd. 2 BLT (AD)-78 ....View Full Judgment

Section 118

Claim for recovery of money by Bank—Claim for recovery of money by a Banking Company whether can be decreed in the absence of any evidence as to actual payment of the amount—In view of the fact that title deeds were deposited with the bank along with all other usual documents, executed by the predecessor of the defendant Company .ind regular entries in the ledger and clean :ash book of the Bank in respect of the loan, the claim is established—There is also admission of the Managing Director of the defendant Company as to the liability to the Bank—Moreover there is presumption under he Negotiable instruments Act, Bankers Books of Evidence Act and Banking Companies Ordinance. Planters (Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. Mahaluxmi Bank Limited and others 5BLD(AD)150. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 123A & 138

Crossed cheque–
The legislative mandate as used in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 123A of the Act, 1881 that when a cheque is crossed "account payee" shall cease to be negotiable means it cannot be negotiated or encashed with any other person except the person in whose favour the same was issued. To make it clearer, a crossed cheque "account payee" must be enchased through the account of the holder in whose favour it was issued. So, by no means, a crossed cheque "account payee" loses its character as a negotiable one within the meaning of section 138 of the Act, 1881. Moreover, section 138 of Act, 1881 which has defined "Negotiable instrument" has not made any distinction between crossed cheque "account payee" or cheque of other kind such as bearer cheque we ordinarily mean. Thus, we find that section 123A of the Act, in no way, creates any bar in proceeding with a case under section 138 of the Act, 1881. In other words, we do not see any nexus of section 123A with the proceedings to be initiated under section 138 of the Act. .....Sahab Uddin(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 592] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138, 140 and section 141

Section 141 (b) cannot take away the substantive right accruing to the beneficiary of a cheque to prosecute any number of subsequent presentation of the cheque on its dishonour. Similarly, each dishonour will give rise to a concomitant right to serve notice under proviso (b) to section 138 (1) of the Act and demand payment, failing which the bearer of the cheque will have the right to make a complaint in writing in accordance with section 141 (a) of the Act–
Section 138(1) and section 141(b). Sections 138 and 140 of the Act are substantive provisions of law giving details of the offence, when the offence is committed and who is liable; section 141 of the Act describes the procedure to be followed.
That the second and subsequent presentation of the cheque must be within six months from the date on which the cheque was drawn in order to be able to prosecute the drawer of the cheque criminally under section 138 of the Act. Upon subsequent presentation of the cheque for payment, if it is again dishonoured another opportunity will accrue to the beneficiary to take action as provided under section 138(1) of the Act, and again, in accordance with the provisions of section 141, the beneficiary of the cheque will be obliged to make complaint against such subsequent dishonour within a period of one month from the cause of action arising under proviso (c) to section 138 (1) of the Act. The offence is committed each time the cheque is dishonoured on presentation for payment.
The procedural limitation provided in section 141 (b) cannot take away the substantive right accruing to the beneficiary of a cheque to prosecute any number of subsequent presentation of the cheque on its dishonour. Similarly, each dishonour will give rise to a concomitant right to serve notice under proviso (b) to section 138 (1) of the Act and demand payment, failing which the bearer of the cheque will have the right to make a complaint in writing in accordance with section 141 (a) of the Act. It will be entirely up to the bearer of the cheque to proceed in respect of any particular dishonour of the cheque. …Nizam Uddin Mahmud Hossain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 259] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Where the amount promised shall depend on some other complementary facts or fulfillment of another promise and if any cheque is issued on that basis, but that promise is not fulfilled it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque. As such dishonesty or fraud cannot be attributed to the respondent in giving stop payment instructions– The High Court Division being last court of facts upon elaborate consideration of the evidence both the oral and documentary has come to the conclusion that the complainant failed to take any step to sell the property of the respondent, rather the respondent and his brother and sister sold the said property to the U.S.A. Embassy and the complainant did not help the respondent in any way in that regard.
In his cross examination the complainant has said, "শর্তে উল্লেখ আছে বাজার মূল্যে ক্রেতা আনিতে পারিলে আমি (বাদী) কমিশন পাব।" There is no such averment, in the petition of complaint or in the evidence that the complainant has stated that he had brought any purchaser who offered market price of the property. From the evidence quoted above it appears that the condition under which the cheques were issued was not fulfilled by the complainant appellant. Thus, the respondent instructed the bank not to encash the impugned cheques. Accordingly, the bank returned the cheques with endorsement, “payment stopped by the drawer”. Where the amount promised shall depend on some other complementary facts or fulfillment of another promise and if any cheque is issued on that basis, but that promise is not fulfilled it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. As such dishonesty or fraud cannot be attributed to the respondent in giving stop payment instructions. Consequently, the question of committing an offence by the accused respondent punishable under section 138 of the Act does not arise. All the appeals are dismissed. ...Abul Kaher Shahin(Md.) =VS= Emran Rashid, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 338] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Section 138
Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003
Section 6
Civil and criminal cases shall proceed in accordance with law– The final conclusion of the High Court Division is contradictory to several decisions of this Division wherein it has been clearly held that the pendency of a civil suit will not hinder proceeding of a criminal case and vice versa. In this regard, reference may be made to the cases of Monzur Alam (Md) vs State, 55 DLR (AD) 62, SAB Solaiman Ali vs Rangs Industries Limited, 2004 1 Law Guardian (AD) 20.
We are constrained to hold that the impugned judgements and orders of the High Court Division are palpably erroneous set aside. Accordingly, the criminal petitions for leave to appeal are disposed of with direction that both civil and criminal cases shall proceed in accordance with law. ...Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md), (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 566] ....View Full Judgment

Sec-138

Dishonoured due to insufficient fund–
We also find it difficult to accept that if the petitioner had in fact paid the money owed to the complainant in the year 2011, as alleged by him, that he did not take any steps to stop payment of the cheque issued by him earlier, especially when he himself states that the complainant told him that the cheque was lost, keeping in mind that anyone could attempt to encash that cheque. From 24.7.2011, when the petitioner apparently paid Tk.10 lac by Pay Order, till 18.09.2012 when the complaint was lodged, the petitioner did nothing to retrieve the cheque or to stop payment of the cheque. He admitted in his cross examination that he did not file any G.D. in respect of the non-return of the cheque. Moreover, we find from the deposition of the petitioner (D.W.1) that he admitted in cross examination of other transactions between himself and the complainant with regard to sale of land by the complainant and his wife and the payment of money in 2011. .....M.A. Azam Chowdhury =VS= A.B.M. Asaduzzamn & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 591] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The trial court has completed the cross examination of the P.W.1 on 13-03-2014 and thereafter, the case was fixed for examination of the accused under section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code. These facts prove that the respondent has been adopting dilatory tactics. The High Court Division did not apply its judicial mind in staying the proceeding. The rule itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, the rule is discharged. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the order. .....Borak Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. =VS= Arifur Rahman(Mr.), (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 543] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The accused petitioner issued 60 post dated cheques in favour of complainant financial institution. As per provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, prima-facie case against the petitioner, had been made out. The High Court Division held that since there is no bar to get the loan amount realized by producing issued cheques for encashment, the instant proceedings were not liable to be quashed. .....Ehetasamul Haque =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 552] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

An offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not compoundable, it being a special law. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocates on Record, we are of the opinion that the ends of Justice will be sufficiently met if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him in prison, and the sentence of fine is set aside. We note that the complainant appeared before us to say that he has received his money in full satisfaction. The criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act is affirmed with modification of the sentence as mentioned above. .....Idris Chowkder (Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 560] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138 and 141(b)

Criminal proceeding should not be stifled before trial, when there is a prima facie case for going to the trial– There was no violation of section 141(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The High Court Division further found that the law is now settled on the point that a criminal proceeding should not be stifled before trial, when there is a prima facie case for going to the trial. .....M.K. Bazlur Rahman =VS= Md. Johurul Haque, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 586] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The powers given to the Court is discretionary–
Section 138(1) empowers the trial Court to punish with imprisonment for a maximum period of one year, or with fine which may extend to thrice the amount of the cheque or both. The powers given to the Court is discretionary. The language used in the section is not such that the Court must impose fine thrice the amount of the cheque. The legislature has left the matter to the discretion of the trial Court. .....Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 600] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Section-138 read with
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561
The cheques were issued by the respondent which were returned with endorsement, "payment stopped by the drawer". Since the cheques were returned by bank with the endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer" it is to be presumed that those were returned unpaid because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account was insufficient to honour of the cheque as envisaged in Section 138 of the Act. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The defence can be considered at the time of holding trial and not in an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment and orders of the High Court Division are hereby set aside. The concerned Courts are directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with law. .....S.M. Redwan =VS= Md. Rezaul Islam, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 605] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138 & 140

If a case is instituted against a company alone, excluding the persons who were responsible to the affairs of the company’s, it can be prosecuted and punished–
The difference between sections 138 and 140 is that in respect of section 138 the offence is committed by human beings, that is to say, natural person and in section 140 though the expression “the person” is used which is qualified by a company which means “any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals” which is a juristic person or not. It can be prosecuted for the offence under section 138. Section 140 of the Act, we are of the view that for proper and effective adjudication of the cases, the complainant (s) / drawee (s) may add the company as one of the accused in the case but for not impleading the company, the case will not fail. .....Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Jhon Provanjon Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 562] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The order of conviction passed by the trial Court was in accordance with the law as by adducing evidence the complainant succeeded in proving that a cheque for Tk.7,00,000.00 given to him was, when duly presented, dishonoured and that before filing the complaint petition, he complied with the procedural requirements laid down in section 138 of the Act. So, this leave petition is dismissed as it is bound to be. The petitioner has in fact paid all the money due to the complainant. The complainant admitted that he had received the full amount of the cheque from the accused petitioner and that he had no further claim against him. In view of the fact that the leave petitioner has paid the full amount of the cheque, he is exonerated from paying any more and as he has already spent 3 months in prison, he need not go back to prison and the sentence of imprisonment is thus modified to the period already undergone by him in prison. .....Biplob (Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 364] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Realization of fine to be paid to the payee–
Complaint petition filed by an aggrieved person, i.e. the payee, not at the instance of the ‘State’; the State is not a ‘necessary’ party though it may be ‘proper’ party in case under the Act, 1881; the cheque bears the proprietary and pecuniary interest of the payee and the law provides for realization of fine to be paid to the payee, vide sub-section (2) of section 138; by way of amendment, done by Act No. III of 2006 (09.02.2006), section 138A has been inserted making provisions to deposit not less than 50% of the amount of the dishonoured cheque, in the trial Court, as a precondition to prefer appeal; there is no similar provision for preferring appeal by a person convicted under any other law; apparently, the Act, 1881 is a piece of beneficial legislation and distinct from other penal law; hence, in appropriate case, costs may be awarded in case under the Act, 1881. .....Khondker Latifur Rahman =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 383] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Two questions are involved in these appeals and petitions. The first question is whether if a company incorporated under the Companies Act commits an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is excluded from prosecution, can a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company be prosecuted for that offence, and secondly, whether if more than one cheques issued by the same drawer can be prosecuted in a single case. .....Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 251] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Cheque dishonour–
There is no legal bar of filing a single case against the drawer of the cheques if the notice is served within the period of limitation intimating the fact of dishonour of the cheques with a request to pay the amount involved in those cheques within a period of thirty days. .....Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 251] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Scope to cross-examine and also be at liberty to examine defence witness–
The High Court Division took the right view that the accused should be given scope to cross-examine PW1 allowing 2/3 dates as the Metropolitan Additional Sessions Judge, in the meantime, fixed the respective cases for examination of the accused under section 342 of the Code and accordingly, we endorse the same. We add by saying that the respective petitioners shall also be at liberty to examine defence witnesses, if they so desire, after their examination under section 342 of the Code. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. .....Majad Hossain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 318] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

In order to make a person liable under section 138 the payee of a cheque has to give a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by hun from the Bank regarding the return of the chequer as unpaid in terms of clause (b) to the proviso. The drawer of the cheque is obliged to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice failing which the cause of action for prosecution will arise under clause (c). [Para-7] S. M. Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam & Am: 7BLT (AD)-218 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

In order to make a person liable under section 138 the payee of a cheque has to give a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid in terms of clause (b) to the proviso. The drawer of the cheque is obliged to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice failing which the cause of action for prosecution will arise under clause (c). S.M. Anwar Hossain Vs Md. Shafiqul Alam (Chand) and another, 19BLD(AD)166 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138 and 141

read with
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898)
Section—561A
The cheque in question was issued by the appellant on 21.12.1995 which was presented for encashment on 23.12.1995 but it was dishonoured on the same day whereupon the complainant issued notice to the appellant on 24.12.1995 for payment of money for which the cheque was issued following the clause (b) to the proviso to section 138 of the Act. On receipt of the said notice the appellant in order to avoid payment fraudulently informed the complainant through a lawyer on 4.1.1996 that he had lost the cheque written in the complainants name and made a GD Entry in that behalf. The cause of action for prosecution will arise under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 on the failure of the appellant to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice of the complainant. Relying on the complainant’s own case it is contended on behalf of the appellant the accused-appellant must be fixed with notice for payment at least from 4.1.1996 and after the expiry of 15 days from that date i.e; from 19.1.1996 the cause of action should be taken to have arisen due to non-payment within the said period and complaint was required to be filed within one month from 19.1.1996 in compliance with clause (b) of section 141 of the Act. Admittedly the petition of complaint was filed long after that date i.e., on 18.4.1996 and thus cognizance could not be taken upon such complaint. The subsequent allegations will not save the limitation because the requirement under the law is that the complaint has to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the Act and hence the impugned proceeding is quashed. S.M. Anwar Hossain Vs Md. Shafiqul Alum (Chand) and another, 19BLD(AD)166 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138 and 141

The cause of action for prosecution will arise under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the failure of the appellant to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice of the complainant. In the present case, the cause of action arose on 19-1-96 and the petition of complaint was required to be filed within one month from 19-1-96 in compliance with clause (b) of section 141 of the Act which having not been done by the complainant the cognizance of the offence cannot be taken upon such complaint and hence the impugned proceeding is quashed. SM Anwar Hossain vs Shafiul Alam (Chand) & another 4BLC(AD) 106. ....View Full Judgment

Section 138(1) (b)

Whether the notice was a demand notice or not as contemplated under section 138 (1) (b) of the Act is a disputed question of fact which could not be decided by the High Court Division while exercising jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code. Rashedul Alam Chowdhury vs ASM Shahajahan 17 BLC (AD) 39 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The complainant served a legal notice within 15 days of the receipt of the information of return of the cheques. So there is no valid ground for quashing the proceeding under section 138 of the Act. Habibur Rahman Howlader vs State 53 DLR (AD) 111. ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

Under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act an offence is committed if a cheque is dishonoured and if payment is not made within 15 days after receipt of a legal notice. It is a settled law that criminal proceeding can be proceeded independently of the civil suit. Manzur Alam (Md) vs State and another 55 DLR (AD) 62. ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The convict respondent admitted about the loan, issuance of cheques by him and dishonour of cheques and that a notice under section 138(1)(b) has been given by the complainant. Thus, all the legal requirements are present to bring the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Amir Hossain vs MA Malek and others 56 DLR (AD) 146. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138 & 141

Subsequent allegations will not save limitation for prosecution– The requirement under the law is that the complaint against non–payment of money has to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises–The High Court Division wrongly rejected the application for quashing. SM Anwar Hossain vs Md Shajiul Alam (Chand) and another 51 DLR (AD) 218. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 138 & 141

Taking of cognisance upon the petition of complaint filed by the Attorney upon due examination under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is "perfectly valid and appropriate". Hashibul Bashar vs Guizar Rahman and another 56 DLR (AD) 17. ....View Full Judgment

Section 138(1) (b) (c), 141.

It does not constitute any offence or no offence shall be deemed to have been committed as alleged and as such it would be manifestly unjust to allow process of the Court to continue and would infact be an abuse of process and, therefore the proceeding is liable to be quashed. Nizam Uddin Mahmood vs Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J)(Criminal) 2ADC 793 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

A criminal proceeding can be quashed under section 561A of the Code of crim­inal procedure if the same does not dis­close any case or it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the insti­tution or continuation of the said pro­ceeding or whether the facts disclose an offence or not can only be determined on evidence being adduced. Abdul Aziz vs Khaja Abdul Gani (K. M. Hasan C. J) (Criminal) J ADC 23 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138,141

We are, therefore, of the view that though the appellant presented the cheque on four dates but after the cheque was dishonoured for the last time on 26.10.2000, he served the required notice on 06.11.2000, well within statutory period and as such fil­ing of the instant complaint on 11.12.2000 cannot be regarded as ille­gal. Munshi Md. Rashed Kamal vs Abdus Salam (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Criminal) 2ADC 798 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138,141

In order to make a person liable under section 138 the payee of a cheque has to give a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid in terms of clause (b) to the Proviso. S.M. Anwar Hossain vs Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) (A.T.M. Afzal C J)(Criminal) 2ADC 879 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138,141(b)

Section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to discharge him but the learned Magistrate rejected the appli- cation and then the accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.5518 of 2001 under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the proceeding and the High Court Division by the judgment and order dated 25.06.2002 made the rule absolute quash­ing the proceeding. Nizamuddin Mahmood vs. Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Criminal) 5ADC 891 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

That though the appellant presented the cheque on four dates but after the cheque was dishonoured for the last time on 26.10.2000, he served the required notice on 06.11.2000, well within statu­tory period and as such filing of the instant complaint on 11.12.2000 cannot be regarded as illegal. It is clear that the High Court Division took a contrary view on an erroneous interpretation of the law and quashed the proceeding. The impugned judg­ment is bad in law and as such is not sustainable. Munshi Md. Rashed Kamal vs. Abdus Salam and another (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Criminal) 4ADC 357 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

For non-compliance with the require­ment of Section 138(1) (b) and (c) of the Act no offence has been constituted or deemed to have been committed and as such as the proceeding has correctly been quashed. Nizam Uddin Mahmood vs. Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan and another (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J) (Criminal) 4ADC 446 ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The offence under section 138 of the Act is not a natural crime like hurt or murder. It is an offence created by a legal fiction in the statute–
The offence under section 138 of the Act is not a natural crime like hurt or murder. It is an offence created by a legal fiction in the statute. It is a civil liability, transformed into a criminal liability under restricted conditions by way of an amendment of the Act. Before amendment, offending acts referred to section 138 of the Act constituted only a pure and civil liability. ...Mohammad Alauddin =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 124] ....View Full Judgment

Section 138

The cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid criminal liability–
Once issuance of cheque and signature thereon are found to be genuine, the court shall proceed with the proceeding. Question of fraud or fraudulent insertion can only be determined by recording and considering evidence by the trial Court after holding trial. If blank cheque is issued towards liability or as security, when the liability is proved, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid criminal liability.
The disputed question of fact as to the issuance of the cheque as 'security' or 'advance' or 'post dated' can only be decided upon recording evidence. All the appeals and petitions are dismissed. ...Mohammad Alauddin =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 124] ....View Full Judgment

Section 141

If a company is not prosecuted due to any legal snag or otherwise, the other prosecuted persons can not, on that score alone, escape from criminal liability created through legal fiction envisaged in section 141 of the Act.’ .....Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 251] ....View Full Judgment

Section 141(b)

The subsequent allegations will not save the limitation—the requirement unçler the law is that the complaint has to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause(c) of the proviso to section 138. [Para- 10] S. M. Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam & Am: 7BLT (AD)-218 ....View Full Judgment