Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981

 

Negotiable
Instruments Act [XXVI of 1981]


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 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.

 

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.



 

Section 138–

Where there
is no non­-obstante clause the jurisdiction of the court, constituted under the
Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken away or barred–the court below
committed no illegality in taking cognizance or framing of charge under the
general provision of law.

Moniruzzaman
(Md) vs ANM Didar-e-Alam and others 54 DLR 445.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Section 138–

Admittedly,
in the present case the cheque was presented to the bank after expiry of 6
months from the date of drawing of the cheque. So, obviously this case under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable in view of the
restriction imposed by proviso (a) to the said section. So, the proceeding is
liable to be quashed.

MA Mazid vs
Md Abdul Motaleb 56 DLR 636.

 

Section 138(a)–

Cheques were
presented to the bank twice within six months from the date it was
drawn––Computation of 15 days for serving notice should be done from the date
on which the cheques lastly returned by the bank–This having were been done the
application under section 561A of Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived.

Habibur
Rahman Hawlader vs State and another 55 
DLR 199

 

Section 138(b)–

The
petitioner would get opportunity to raise the point whether the cheque was
presented within time at the time of framing charge and the question when the
cheque was presented to the bank for the 1st time cannot be decided in this
application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is a
disputed question of fact.

Hasibul
Bashar (Md) vs Dilshed Huda and another 55 DLR 200.

 

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.

 

Sections 138 & 141–

Even though
the case is pre–mature and it was filed before the expiry of 15 days from the
date of receipt of the notice, the proceeding is not liable to be quashed.

Satya
Narayan Poddar vs State and another 53 DLR 403.

 

Sections 138 & 141–

Admittedly
there was a transaction between the parties and the petitioner issued the
cheque in question but the law of limitation stands as an impediment to proceed
further with the case in view of clause (b) of section 138 and clause (b) to
section 141 of the Act. Time is a great factor of human life specially when it
comes into play for legal purpose. The proceeding of the CR case is quashed.

Abdus Salam
vs Md Munshi Rashed Kamal and anr 54 DLR 234.

 

Sections 138 & 141–

In view of
discussions made in the facts and circumstance of the case, there was no other
alternative but to quash the proceeding as the opposite party No. 1 complainant
had earlier taken recourse to clause (b) of section 138 of the Act in an
unsuccessful manner which does not in any way give rise to further cause of
action as cause of action as provided under sections 138 and 141 of the Act
arises only for once.

Dr Md
Mofizur Rahman and ors vs Md Bashirullah and another 55 DLR 630.

 

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.

 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981


Negotiable Instruments Act

[XXVI of 1981]


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 138 &
141—

An offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act is for dishonour of a cheque simpliciter for insufficiency of fund, etc.
whereas an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code for cheating is a
distinct offence. The rule of law about the peremptory application of the
special law in place of the general law for trial of an offence hardly applies
when the offences are distinct under the two laws.

Nurul Islam vs State and another 49 DLR 464.