Here are a few cases related to dishonour of cheques in Bangladesh where the accused were found not guilty, along with brief facts and judgment summaries, and references:
Abdul Awal vs. State (2010) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 2,00,000, 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 the cheque as a security and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment.
Reference: Abdul Awal vs. State, 63 DLR (AD) 72 (2010)
Rafiqul Islam vs. State (2011) – 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 already paid the amount to the complainant, and the cheque was issued only as a receipt. The court held that the accused had proved that the amount had already been paid, and the cheque was given only as a receipt, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the amount had already been paid, and the cheque was given only as a receipt.
Reference: Rafiqul Islam vs. State, 64 DLR (AD) 104 (2011)
Read More: Case Laws: Dishonour of Cheques Cases in Bangladesh
Shahabuddin Ahmed vs. State (2002) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 1,20,000, 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 stopped payment on the cheque due to a dispute with the complainant. The court held that the accused had proved that he had stopped payment on the cheque due to a dispute with the complainant, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that he had stopped payment on the cheque due to a dispute with the complainant.
Reference: Shahabuddin Ahmed vs. State, 54 DLR (AD) 11 (2002)
M/s. Universal Trading Corporation vs. Md. Selim Uddin (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 given the cheque as a post-dated cheque, and that the complainant had encashed it before the date mentioned on the cheque. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was post-dated, and the complainant had encashed it before the date mentioned on the cheque, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was post-dated, and the complainant had encashed it before the date mentioned on the cheque.
Reference: M/s. Universal Trading Corporation vs. Md. Selim Uddin, 68 DLR (AD) 229 (2017)
Abdul Karim vs. State (2014) – 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 given the cheque as a gift, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was given as a gift, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was given as a gift, and not as a payment.
Reference: Abdul Karim vs. State, 66 DLR (AD) 32 (2014)
Farid Hossain Chowdhury vs. State (2008) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 2,00,000, 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 not signed by him, and that someone had forged his signature. The court held that the accused had proved that his signature on the cheque was forged, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that his signature on the cheque was forged.
Reference: Farid Hossain Chowdhury vs. State, 60 DLR (AD) 148 (2008)
Anwarul Haque Chowdhury vs. State (2007) – In this case, the accused issued a cheque to the complainant for an amount of Taka 6,50,000, 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 security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment.
Reference: Anwarul Haque Chowdhury vs. State, 59 DLR (AD) 108 (2007)
Md. Nurul Huda vs. State (2006) – 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 the cheque as a donation, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was given as a donation, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was given as a donation, and not as a payment.
Reference: Md. Nurul Huda vs. State, 58 DLR (AD) 123 (2006)
Mokbul Ahmed vs. State (2004) – 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 given the cheque as a collateral security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had proved that the cheque was given as a collateral security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused, as he had proved that the cheque was given as a collateral security, and not as a payment.
Reference: Mokbul Ahmed vs. State, 56 DLR (AD) 87 (2004)
Md. Shah Alam 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 he had issued the cheque as a security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had successfully proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused of the offence of dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Shah Alam vs. State, 20 BLT (AD) 103 (2013)
Md. Mohsin vs. State (2014) – 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 accused had successfully proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused of the offence of dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Mohsin vs. State, 21 BLT (AD) 189 (2014)
Muhammad Azam vs. State (2012) – 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 security, and not as a payment. The court held that the accused had successfully proved that the cheque was given as a security, and not as a payment, and therefore, he was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused of the offence of dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Muhammad Azam vs. State, 19 BLT (AD) 143 (2012)
Md. Moniruzzaman 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 the cheque was not dishonoured due to insufficient funds, but because he had stopped payment of the cheque. The court found that the accused had stopped payment of the cheque and not due to insufficient funds. The court held that stopping payment of a cheque is not an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and therefore, the accused was not liable for dishonour of the cheque.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused of the offense of dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Moniruzzaman vs. State, 24 BLT (AD) 84 (2017)
Md. Tarek vs. State (2018) – 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 already paid the amount to the complainant in cash, and the cheque was given as a token of goodwill. The court found that the accused had indeed paid the amount to the complainant in cash, and the cheque was given as a token of goodwill. The court held that the accused was not liable for dishonour of the cheque, as it was not given as a payment.
Judgment: The court acquitted the accused of the offence of dishonour of the cheque.
Reference: Md. Tarek vs. State, 25 BLT (AD) 152 (2018)