Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) (BD) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 4 |
Promissory Note–It is an instrument in writing (not being a bank–note
or a currency–note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by
the maker, to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable further time a
certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to
the bearer of the instrument.
|
Sonali Bank vs Hare Krishna Das | 49 DLR 282 |
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 |
Arif-Uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= The State | 8 LM (AD) 614 |
Sections 7 and 138(1) |
The cheque drawn by the accused petitioner on the bank account is not maintained in her name rather it is maintained in the name of her husband. For the purpose of Section 138(1) of the Act, the account has to be maintained by the drawer of the cheque. The liability or debt of the husband cannot be thrust on to the shoulder of the wife, the accused-petitioner. The impugned proceeding is quashed. Shahnaj Begum Munni. -Vs-The State 1 ALR (HCD) 56. |
Shahnaj Begum Munni. -Vs-The State | 1 ALR (HCD) 56 |
Sections 13 and 138 |
Section 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 which has defined "Negotiable Instrument" has not made any distinction between "crossed cheque account payee" or "post-dated cheque given as a security for repayment of the loan" or " any other cheque issued by the drawer for encashment currently" or cheque of other kinds such as "bearer cheque" as ordinarily mean. Tipu Sultan - Vs. - The State 6 ALR 2015(2)190. |
Tipu Sultan - Vs. - The State | 6 ALR 2015(2) 190 |
Section 48 |
From reading of section 48 of the Act we do not find that institution of
this case under Penal Code is barred under section 48 of the Act by an
explicit provision of this Act.
|
Salahuddin (Md) and others vs State | 51 DLR 299 |
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 |
Sonali Bank Vs. M/S. Karnaphuli Works Ltd. | 2 BLT (AD) 78 |
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. |
Planters (Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. Mahaluxmi Bank Limited and others | 5 BLD (AD) 150 |
Section 118,138 |
Dishonour of cheque,
|
Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid & anr. | 14 SCOB [2020] AD 96 |
Sections 123A & 138 |
Crossed cheque–
|
Sahab Uddin(Md.) =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 592 |
Section 131 |
A duty is cast upon a banker, before opening a new account of a customer to
adhere to the rules and practices prevailing with regard thereto. And
especially as a collecting bank it should take into consi-deration the
state of the account to make sure that it is free from doubt. The central
bank itself found irregularity with opening of the account and asked the
defendant by a letter to refund the proceeds collected against the forged
cheques. With the proven fact that the cheques are forged, recipient of the
forged cheques is althrough untraced and the address given is false, the
conduct of the Defendant-Appellant with its fellow banker does not seem to
conform the law, practices and tradition of banking business. The defendant
cannot escape its liability to pay back the money collected by it against
cheques found forged. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial
court is hereby affirmed.
|
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. vs Agrani Bank | 16 BLC 150 |
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–
|
Nizam Uddin Mahmud Hossain =VS= The State | 7 LM (AD) 259 |
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.
|
Abul Kaher Shahin(Md.) =VS= Emran Rashid | 9 LM (AD) 338 |
Section 138 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
Eastern Bank Limited =VS= Sirajuddula(Md) | 9 LM (AD) 566 |
Sections 138, 141(b) |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Amendment Act 1994)
|
SM Anwar Hossain =VS= Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) | 12 LM (AD) 617 |
Section 138 |
On the contrary Appellate Division reiterates that if any cheque is presented to the Bank twice or on many more times, within six months from the date it was drawn, computation of the period for prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act should be done from which the cheque is lastly returned. .....Nizam Uddin Mahmood =VS= Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 655] ....View Full Judgment |
Nizam Uddin Mahmood =VS= Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan | 12 LM (AD) 655 |
Section 138 |
Non disclosure of the date as to receipt of notice by the accused and failure to mention any legal cause of action in the petition of complaint, so the proceeding cannot be allowed to continue and as such it is liable to be quashed– After considering the facts and circumstances and the law on the point Appellate Division finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. In view of the non disclosure of the date as to receipt of notice by the accused and failure to mention any legal cause of action in the petition of complaint, this Division is of the view that the proceeding cannot be allowed to continue and as such it is liable to be quashed. In view of our discussion made above the ultimate order of the High Court Division in quashing the proceeding is found to be sustainable. .....Nizam Uddin Mahmood =VS= Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 655] ....View Full Judgment |
Nizam Uddin Mahmood =VS= Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan | 12 LM (AD) 655 |
Section 138 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Alhaj Golam Rasul Belal =VS= Habibullah Shakir | 12 LM (AD) 672 |
Sections 138, 141(C) |
The legal notice was issued within time and the complaint case has also been initiated within time we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in discharging the Rule– There is no denial as to the dishonouring of the cheque issued by the accused petitioner and the fact of issuance of legal notice after the last occasion of dishonoring the cheque by the bank concern with the endorsement “not arranged for and refer to the drawar” and on the face of dishonour of the disputed cheque and non-response to the demand for payment against dishonoured cheque Appellate Division finds criminality as alleged and as the High Court Division has observed that the accused persons have been avoiding payment and that the legal notice was issued within time and the complaint case has also been initiated within time this Division does not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in discharging the Rule. The High Court Division on detailed discussions on the issues involved has arrived at its decision with cogent reasonings, which are in accordance with law and hence no interference is called for. .....Joynul Karim =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 686] ....View Full Judgment |
Joynul Karim =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 686 |
Section 138 |
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
|
Mushfequr Rahman -Vs.- The State | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 155 |
Section 138 (1) |
A plain reading of subsection (1) of the Section 138 of the Act, 1881 shows that an offence under this section shall be deemed to have been committed, the moment a cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a bank for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account is bounced by the bank unpaid on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Sub-section (1) of section 138 has not made any qualification of the cheque so returned unpaid either post dated given as a security for repayment of the money as alleged by the accused or any other cheque issued by the drawer from encashment currently. The legislature has not made any difference between a post dated cheque issued as security and a cheque issued for encashment currently. I do not see any scope of making any such difference. …Md. Zakir Hussain Vs. Md. Jalal Khan and another, 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 52 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Zakir Hussain Vs. Md. Jalal Khan and another | 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 52 |
Section 138 |
Complainant failed to prove the case as made out in the complaint-petition
against accused-respondent No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt that the
complaint was filed in order to harass respondent No. 1– The learned
Sessions Judge, Bagerhat convicted appellant-respondent No. 1 under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced her there under
to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months with a fine of Tk.
10,00000/- (Ten lakh),in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for further
1(one) month more.
|
Sheikh Wahiduzzaman Dipu =VS= Tanima Afrin Kumkum | 11 LM (AD) 312 |
Sections 138 |
Secondly, if the Magistrate takes cognizance and issues summons against the accused-director despite non-making clearer description about the responsibility of the said accused-director, then, as per the Indian Supreme Court’s view, the order of issuance of summons is liable to be quashed. But nothing has been said by the Indian Supreme Court about the next step available for the complainant, given that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act having been duly constituted remains intact following quashing the Magistrate’s Order of issuance of summon/warrant. When an accused is discharged from or acquitted of the accusation of a criminal charge by a trial Court, the status of a criminal offence becomes non-est. Also, when a criminal case is quashed by this Court on the ground of non-disclosure of any offence, irrespective of the said case’s stage - be it at the investigation stage or trial or post-trial stage, the offence is wiped out. But, if a criminal case is quashed merely on the ground of procedural illegality, be it happens after completion of its trial or during trial or at the investigation stage, the High Court Division’s duty is to express its view as to what would be the next step for the informant/complainant following quashment of the impugned order/proceedings. Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 ....View Full Judgment |
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Whether a criminal case under Section 138 read with Section 140 NI act is
liable to be quashed on the ground of non-impleadment of the company.
|
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Guidelines for the Magistrates who are assigned to take cognizance of the
offence under Sections 138 and 140 NI Act.
|
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Taking cognizance of “deemed guilt” and “proved guilt” as provided
in Section 140 NI Act.
|
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
When the offence is committed by a company, the ‘deemed guilt’ is primarily attached to the members of the BoD in addition to the signatory of the cheque and the company inasmuch as after dishonouring of a cheque issued by a company, when the said company decides not to pay off the cheque-amount despite receiving demand/legal notice, the said decision is to be seen and taken as a serious business of the company and for the said type of conduct of business of the company, it is quite commonsensical to deem that all the members of the BoD jointly and individually were aware of the said decision having foreseen its legal consequence and, thereby, they are to be deemed to be guilty for non-payment of the cheque amount. Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 ....View Full Judgment |
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Reasons for impleading the directors of the company in a case under Section 138 read with Section 140 NI Act. Company is a juristic person and its Board of Directors acts as its body and mind. All the powers of management of the affairs of the company are vested in the BoD and, thus, the Board becomes the working organ of the company. The BoD is, therefore, considered to be the company’s supreme authority which consists of the directors of the company. That is how, the directors remain responsible for the company’s management, which includes taking/making loan and repayment thereof. For this reason, it is fairly reasonable for a person, who is having a transaction with a company, to presume that the directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company. If any restrictions of their powers are placed by the Memorandum or Articles of the company, it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. It is in that context that Section 140 of the NI Act provides that when the offender is a company, every person, who at the time when the of-fence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the of-fence along with the company. Therefore, when simply an allegation in the com¬plaint would be made stating that the named accuseds are directors of the company, it would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. In other words, the requirement of disclosing an offence against an accused-director of a company, in the cheque-dishonouring criminal cases, is to be taken to have been fulfilled by the complainant if the names of the directors are mentioned in the column of the accused and the supporting documents as to holding the post of director, such as the Articles & Memorandum of Association and Form XII of the accused-company, are annexed to the complaint-petition. It leads us to hold that since a company, being a juristic person, operates through the BoD consisting of the Chairman, Managing Director, Joint/Deputy Managing Director and other Directors, the members of the BoD normally be impleaded as accused for their ‘deemed guilt’ along with the company when there arises an occasion by anybody to file a criminal case against the company. Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 ....View Full Judgment |
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Negotiable Instruments Act [XXVI of 1881]
|
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Section 138 and 140 |
If the complainant claims before the Magistrate that no reply to the demand notice was made by the accused and, later on, at the stage of framing charge the accused can satisfy the trial Court that in spite of her/his reply detailing her/his non-involvement in the conduct of the business of the company upon appending document in its support, the complainant had not produced it before the Magistrate or despite of its production before the Court, the cognizance-taking Magistrate failed to consider it, in that scenario, the trial Court would be in a position to discharge her/him from the charge or, if s/he approaches this Court directly, this Court may quash the proceedings so for as it relates to the aforesaid accused who had clarified her/his position by replying to the demand/legal notice by denying any involvement in the conduct of the business of the company upon enclosing the authentic document/papers in substantiating the aforesaid claim. Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 ....View Full Judgment |
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Section 138 and 140 |
It is important to bear in mind that in the cases under Sections 138 and 140 of NI Act, the accused is entitled to seek discharge relying upon the contents of a reply to the demand/legal notice, for, the same is a prosecution material and, accordingly, the accused is also competent to approach this Court on the basis of the said material in addition to any other prosecution material, subject to the condition that the contents of the reply together with its annexed document are either conceded by the complainant or, if disputed by the complainant, it appears to the trial Court/this Court that the same does not require any formal proof through producing evidence before the trial Court. Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 ....View Full Judgment |
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Section 138 and 140 |
View of Indian Supreme Court about impleading the Director/s of the Company
in a case under Section 138 read with 140 NI Act.
|
Engineer Sirajul Islam and another -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 230 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [XXVI of 1881]
|
Md. Abul Hashem -Vs.- The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 82 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [XXVI of 1881]
|
Md. Sirajul Islam. -Vs- The State | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 172 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
Negotiable Instruments Act [XXVI of 1881]
|
Rashiduzzaman Millat and another -Vs.-The State and another | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 344 |
Section 138 |
Section ‘138A’ has been inserted in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No. III of 2006). The provision of section 138A is clear and unambiguous. By inserting section 138A in the original NI Act, 1881 the parliament has intentionally made a bar in preferring an appeal against 4 any order of sentence under sub-section (1) of section 138. By using the words “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898” and the words “unless an amount of not less than fifty per cent of the amount of the dishonored cheque is deposited before filing the appeal in the Court which awarded the sentence” clearly suggest that the provisions of the code of criminal procedure in respect of preferring appeal under NI Act will not be applicable and before filing the appeal 50% of the amount of the dishonored cheque is to be deposited in the Court which awarded the sentence (underlined to give emphases). The Court which awarded the sentence specifically indicates that said amount must be deposited in the Court who awarded the sentence, nothing more nothing less inasmuch as that after awarding sentence under sub-section (1) of section 138, receipt of even total dues by the complainant from the convict will not fulfill the requirement of section 138A of the NI Act. Mohammad Abdul Kader alias Karim -Vs.- The State (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 209 ....View Full Judgment |
Mohammad Abdul Kader alias Karim -Vs.- The State | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 209 |
Sec-138 |
Dishonoured due to insufficient fund–
|
M.A. Azam Chowdhury =VS= A.B.M. Asaduzzamn & another | 1 LM (AD) 591 |
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 |
Borak Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. =VS= Arifur Rahman (Mr.) | 3 LM (AD) 543 |
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 |
Ehetasamul Haque =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 552 |
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 |
Idris Chowkder (Md.) =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 560 |
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 |
M.K. Bazlur Rahman =VS= Md. Johurul Haque | 3 LM (AD) 586 |
Section 138 |
The powers given to the Court is discretionary–
|
Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 600 |
Section 138 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
S.M. Redwan =VS= Md. Rezaul Islam | 3 LM (AD) 605 |
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–
|
Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Jhon Provanjon Chowdhury | 3 LM (AD) 562 |
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 |
Biplob (Md.) =VS= The State | 4 LM (AD) 364 |
Section 138 |
Realization of fine to be paid to the payee–
|
Khondker Latifur Rahman =VS= The State | 4 LM (AD) 383 |
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 |
Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury | 5 LM (AD) 251 |
Section 138 |
Cheque dishonour–
|
Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury | 5 LM (AD) 251 |
Section 138 |
Scope to cross-examine and also be at liberty to examine defence witness–
|
Majad Hossain =VS= The State | 5 LM (AD) 318 |
Sections 138, 140 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
Ashfaq Hossain =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 515 |
Sections 138, 140 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Phoenix Finance and Investment Ltd. =VS= Yeasmin Ahmed | 10 LM (AD) 522 |
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 |
S. M. Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam & Am: | 7 BLT (AD) 218 |
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 |
S.M. Anwar Hossain Vs Md. Shafiqul Alam (Chand) and another, | 19 BLD (AD) 166 |
Sections 138 and 141 |
read with
|
S.M. Anwar Hossain Vs Md. Shafiqul Alum (Chand) and another, | 19 BLD (AD) 166 |
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. |
SM Anwar Hossain vs Shafiul Alam (Chand) & another | 4 BLC( AD) 106 |
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 |
Rashedul Alam Chowdhury vs ASM Shahajahan | 17 BLC (AD) 39 |
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. |
Habibur Rahman Howlader vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 111 |
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. |
Manzur Alam (Md) vs State and another | 55 DLR (AD) 62 |
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. |
Amir Hossain vs MA Malek and others | 56 DLR (AD) 146 |
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. |
SM Anwar Hossain vs Md Shajiul Alam (Chand) and another | 51 DLR (AD) 218 |
Section 138 |
Filing the complaint by the attorney no illegality has been committed–– The complainant while in jail hajat, filed the complaint before the concerned Court of Magistrate through his attorney to avoid the limitation and satisfactory explanation has been furnished to that effect and as such Appellate Division cannot ignore this compelling circumstance in filing the complaint by the attorney. In the instant case, ‘the holder in due course of the cheque’ himself is the complainant and same was presented before the Court through the attorney. ––This Division have no hesitation to hold that in filing the complaint by the attorney no illegality has been committed and the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance into the case against the accused petitioner having complied with the relevant provision of law. .....Kabir Reza =VS= Shah Mohammad Ashraf Islam, (Criminal), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 265] ....View Full Judgment |
Kabir Reza =VS= Shah Mohammad Ashraf Islam | 15 LM (AD) 265 |
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. |
Hashibul Bashar vs Guizar Rahman and another | 56 DLR (AD) 17 |
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 |
Nizam Uddin Mahmood vs Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan | 2 ADC 793 |
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 |
Abdul Aziz vs Khaja Abdul Gani | ADC 23 |
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 |
Munshi Md. Rashed Kamal vs Abdus Salam | 2 ADC 798 |
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 |
S.M. Anwar Hossain vs Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) | 2 ADC 879 |
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 |
Nizamuddin Mahmood vs. Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan | 5 ADC 891 |
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 |
Munshi Md. Rashed Kamal vs. Abdus Salam and another | 4 ADC 357 |
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 |
Nizam Uddin Mahmood vs. Abdul Hamid Bhuiyan and another | 4 ADC 446 |
Section 138 |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Md. Nurul Islam Biplob =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 577 |
Section 138 |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Md. Amam Hossain Milu =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 608 |
Sections 138 and 140 |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Sajjad Hossain = Md. Lutful Hasan | 14 LM (AD) 599 |
Section 138 (1) |
Section 138 (1) is not a compoundable one. Since both the parties have settled matter amicably and the complainant received the half of the amount of the dishonoured cheque in cash and the rest of the amount was deposited with the Sessions Court filing the appeal before the High Court Division. So the sentence awarded against the petitioner is reduced to the period undergone. .....Subhash Chandra Sarker =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 450] ....View Full Judgment |
Subhash Chandra Sarker =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 450 |
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–
|
Mohammad Alauddin =VS= The State | 6 LM (AD) 124 |
Section 138 |
The cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn
the cheque cannot avoid criminal liability–
|
Mohammad Alauddin =VS= The State | 6 LM (AD) 124 |
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 |
Mohammad Eusof Babu =VS= Johan Provanjon Chowdhury | 5 LM (AD) 251 |
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 |
S. M. Anwar Hossain Vs. Md. Shafiul Alam & Am: | 7 BLT (AD) 218 |
Where the amount promised... |
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. …Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid & anr., (Criminal), 14 SCOB [2020] AD 96 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid & anr. | 14 SCOB [2020] AD 96 |
A person issuing the cheque cannot escape... |
A person issuing the cheque cannot escape liability even if there is a stoppage of payment of cheque, unless he disproves the same for the other reasons. In case a cheque issued by a person in favour of another is dishonoured by the bank for want of funds, the holder of the cheque is entitled to the amount as reflected in the cheque since cheque is a negotiable instrument governed under the Act. …Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid & anr., (Criminal), 14 SCOB [2020] AD 96 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid & anr. | 14 SCOB [2020] AD 96 |