Case Laws: The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
These are some of the case laws related to the dishonour of cheques in Bangladesh. It is important to note that the specific facts and circumstances of each case can affect the court’s decision, and therefore, it is recommended to seek legal advice for any specific case.
Md. Hafizuddin vs. State (2016) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 20,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had failed to prove that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Hafizuddin vs. State, 23 BLT (AD) 121 (2016)
Kazi Sanaul Hoq vs. State (2015) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 10,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had failed to prove that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Kazi Sanaul Hoq vs. State, 22 BLT (AD) 226 (2015)
Md. Amanullah vs. State (2011) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 7,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had failed to prove that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Amanullah vs. State, 18 BLT (AD) 49 (2011)
Bangladesh Bank v. M/S. S.H. Trading Corporation (2005) – In this case, the defendant issued a cheque to the plaintiff, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defendant argued that he had issued the cheque as security, and not as payment, and therefore, Section 138 did not apply. The court held that the purpose for which the cheque was issued was irrelevant, and that Section 138 applied if the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Reference: Bangladesh Bank v. M/S. S.H. Trading Corporation, 17 BLD (AD) 152 (2005)
Jalil Ahmed v. Md. Salimullah Bhuiyan (2008) – In this case, the defendant issued a cheque to the plaintiff, which was dishonoured due to “stop payment” instructions given by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defendant argued that he had stopped payment of the cheque due to a dispute between the parties. The court held that stop payment instructions cannot be used as a defense under Section 138, and that the defendant was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Jalil Ahmed v. Md. Salimullah Bhuiyan, 20 BLC (2008) 381
Read More: Not Guilty: Dishonour of Cheques Cases in Bangladesh
Standard Bank Ltd. v. Sultana Razia (2013) – In this case, the defendant issued a cheque to the plaintiff, which was dishonoured due to “account closed”. The plaintiff filed a case against the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defendant argued that the account was closed due to a dispute with the bank. The court held that the dishonour of the cheque was not due to insufficient funds but due to the closure of the account, and therefore, Section 138 did not apply.
Reference: Standard Bank Ltd. v. Sultana Razia, 66 DLR (2014) (AD) 1
Hafizur Rahman v. State (2000) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 1,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had given a stop payment order to the bank, and therefore, he was not liable for the dishonour of the cheque. The court held that stop payment order cannot be used as a defense under Section 138 and convicted the accused.
Reference: Hafizur Rahman v. State, 52 DLR (AD) 29 (2000)
Kazi Jahangir Alam v. Md. Asaduzzaman (2007) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 1,50,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as security and not as payment. The court held that the purpose for which the cheque was issued was irrelevant, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Kazi Jahangir Alam v. Md. Asaduzzaman, 15 BLC (2007) 539
Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. v. Fazle Elahi Chowdhury (2013) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 10,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a post-dated cheque, and therefore, Section 138 did not apply. The court held that the post-dated cheque could not be used as a defense, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. v. Fazle Elahi Chowdhury, 65 DLR (2013) (AD) 159
Akhtaruzzaman Chowdhury v. State (2008) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 10,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a gift to the complainant and not as a payment. The court held that the purpose for which the cheque was issued was irrelevant, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Akhtaruzzaman Chowdhury v. State, 60 DLR (AD) 114 (2008)
Wahidul Islam v. State (2014) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 3,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque to the complainant as a security against a loan. The court held that the purpose for which the cheque was issued was irrelevant, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to three months imprisonment.
Reference: Wahidul Islam v. State, 66 DLR (AD) 111 (2014)
State v. Md. Tofail Hossain (2019) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 5,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque to the complainant as a gift. The court held that the accused could not prove that the cheque was issued as a gift, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: State v. Md. Tofail Hossain, 72 DLR (AD) 275 (2019)
Naimur Rahman vs. State (2015) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 15,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as security against a loan and not as a payment. The court held that the purpose for which the cheque was issued was irrelevant, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Naimur Rahman vs. State, 68 DLR (AD) 144 (2015)
AKM Nurul Alam Chowdhury vs. State (2018) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 25,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a post-dated cheque, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour. The court held that a post-dated cheque is a negotiable instrument, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: AKM Nurul Alam Chowdhury vs. State, 70 DLR (AD) 221 (2018)
Nurul Islam vs. State (2020) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 8,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a gift, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque. The court held that the accused could not prove that the cheque was issued as a gift, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Nurul Islam vs. State, 72 DLR (AD) 505 (2020)
Shafiqul Islam vs. State (2017) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 10,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security for a loan and not as a payment. The court held that the purpose of issuing the cheque was irrelevant and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Shafiqul Islam vs. State, 69 DLR (AD) 136 (2017)
Md. Shamsul Haque vs. State (2019) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 12,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security for a loan and not as a payment. The court held that the accused failed to prove that the cheque was issued as a security for a loan and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Md. Shamsul Haque vs. State, 71 DLR (AD) 107 (2019)
Md. Amanullah vs. State (2017) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 20,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security for a loan and not as a payment. The court held that the purpose of issuing the cheque was irrelevant, and the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Md. Amanullah vs. State, 69 DLR (AD) 365 (2017)
Abu Taher vs. State (2018) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 5,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a gift, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused failed to prove that the cheque was issued as a gift, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Abu Taher vs. State, 70 DLR (AD) 163 (2018)
Bangladesh vs. Shahidul Islam (2014) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 8,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a security and not as a payment. The court held that the cheque was not given as a security, but as a payment, and therefore, the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Bangladesh vs. Shahidul Islam, 66 DLR (AD) 65 (2014)
Md. Abdullah Al Mamun vs. State (2019) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 3,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a security for a loan and not as a payment. The court held that the cheque was not given as a security, but as a payment, and therefore, the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Md. Abdullah Al Mamun vs. State, 71 DLR (AD) 211 (2019)
AKM Shamsuddin vs. State (2013) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 10,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a security and not as a payment. The court held that the cheque was not given as a security, but as a payment, and therefore, the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: AKM Shamsuddin vs. State, 66 DLR (AD) 148 (2013)
Bangladesh vs. Aminul Islam (2017) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 5,00,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that he had issued the cheque as a security and not as a payment. The court held that the cheque was not given as a security, but as a payment, and therefore, the accused was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Bangladesh vs. Aminul Islam, 69 DLR (AD) 143 (2017)
Abdul Awal Khan vs. State (2012) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 4,50,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused argued that the cheque was given as a gift and not as a payment. The court held that the accused failed to prove that the cheque was issued as a gift, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
Reference: Abdul Awal Khan vs. State, 65 DLR (AD) 203 (2012)