Habibur Rahman Howlader Vs. State and another, 53 DLR (AD) (2001) 111

Case No: Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 221 of 2000

Judge: Latifur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. A. J. Mohammad Ali,,

Citation: 53 DLR (AD) (2001) 111

Case Year: 2001

Appellant: Habibur Rahman Howlader

Respondent: The State

Subject: Negotiable Instrument, Business and Commercial Law,

Delivery Date: 2000-11-7

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Criminal)
 
Present:
Latifur Rahman CJ
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury J
Kazi Ebadul Hoque J
 
Habibur Rahman Howlader
.............Petitioner
Vs.
State and another
............. Respondents
 
Judgment
November 7, 2000.
 
The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1994
Section 138
Since a legal notice was served within fifteen days of information of return of the cheques, there was no valid ground for quashing the proceeding.
 
Lawyers Involved:
AJ Mohammed Ali, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For the Petitioner
Mohammad Ali, Advocate-on-Record—For Respondent No. 2.
Not represented—Respondent No. 1.
 
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 221 of 2000.
(From the Judgment and order dated 29-6-2000 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1613 of 1999).
 
JUDGMENT

Latifur Rahman CJ.
 
1. This petition by the accused-petitioner is against the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1813 of 2000 for quashing the proceeding.
 
2. It appears that the accused-petitioner issued two cheques and those two cheques were placed for encashment in the bank within 6 months. Once it was returned with the remark that the fund was insufficient and again it was returned with the remark that the account was closed. The complainant served a legal notice within 15 days of the receipt of the information of return of the cheques in question and, as such, there was no valid ground for quashing the proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1994.
 
3. Mr. AJ Mohammed Ali, learned Advocate, could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment.
 
The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.