Daily Star Home  

<%-- Page Title--%> Star Law Report <%-- End Page Title--%>

  <%-- Page Title--%> Issue No 130 <%-- End Page Title--%>  

February 29 2004 

  <%-- Page Title--%> <%-- Navigation Bar--%>
<%-- Navigation Bar--%>
 

Bouncing of cheques
Prior knowledge of rejection is an offence 

High Court Division
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Mis. Case No 9772 of 2003
Md Aminur Rahman
Vs
The State and another
Justice Gour Gopal Saha and
Justice Abdus Salam Mamun
Date of Judgement: June 15, 2003

Background
Gour Gopal Saha, J: This application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 20-4-2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tangail in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2003 rejecting the revisional application filed against the framing of a charge against the accused petitioner under section 420 of the Penal Code.

Short facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that on 18-12-2000 opposite party No. 2 as complainant filed a petition of Complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, Tangail alleging inter alia that the accused-petitioner took Tk 2,00000/= (Two lac) from him on promise to pay back the same on demand with usual interests but he did not pay back any money to the complainant inspite of repeated demands.

Eventually on being pressed by the complainant, the accused gave him on 20-6-2000 a cheque on the Janata Bank, Tangail Branch for Tk 20,000/= only towards mitigating the liability. The cheque was duly deposited in the account of the complainant but it was dishonoured on 20-6-2000 due to paucity of fund. Subsequently the complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment on 25-7-2000 and 27-10-2000, but as usual the cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter the complainant requested the accused to pay his dues but the accused refused to comply with its and eventually denied the transaction and thereby cheated the complainant.

After examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as required under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and ultimately framed charge against the accused-petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Being aggrieved by the framing of charge as mentioned above, the accused petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No 44 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Tangail under sections 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned sessions Judge by his order dated 25-4-2002 allowed the revision and sent the case back to the learned Magistrate for hearing on framing of charges.

On receiving the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate heard the parties at length and, on perusal of the materials before him, framed charge against the petitioner under section 420 of the Penal Code.

Against the aforesaid order of framing charge by the learned Magistrate, the accused-petitioner preferred Criminal Motion No 60 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Tangail under section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 20.4.2003 summarily rejected the petitioner's revisional application. It is against the aforesaid order 20.4.2003 that the petitioner has preferred this application before us under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Deliberation
The learned advocate appearing for the accused-petitioner, submits that in view of provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant was required to serve a notice upon the accused intimating him of the dishonour of the cheque within 15 days of the such dishonour, and that having not been done no criminal prosecution can be launched against the accused-petitioner. The learned Advocate further submits that the charges under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act having failed, the framing of charge under section 420 of the Penal Code on the self same occurrence is illegal and it amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and, consequently, the impugned order framing charge is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed before us the petition of complaint, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge against the accused petitioner under section 420 of the Penal Code.

Section 420 of the Penal Code provides penalty for the offence of cheating as defined in section 415 of the Penal Code while section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides punishment for issuance of a false cheque leading to its dishonour. A person who is a victim of cheating by the accused by way of a false cheque or otherwise is clearly entitled to proceed against the accused either under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act or under the provision of section 420 of the Penal Code when elements of cheating are established.

Issuing a cheque knowing full well that it shall not be honoured carries with it distinct elements of deceit on the part of the author of the cheque and it renders him liable for prosecution for cheating. The victim of such a fraud has two remedies open to him - one is to file a criminal case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the other is to launch a criminal prosecution under section 420 of the Penal Code. An offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code are two distinct offences, one independent of the other. The aggrieved party has thus the option to choose its remedy under either of the two penal provisions and the defence has no right to ask the complainant to elect a particular penal law that may suit its convenience.

On perusal of the materials placed before us, we are satisfied that there are sufficient materials on record for framing charge against the accused-petitioner under section 420 of the Penal Code. Facts disclosed in the case also make out a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In such a case, it is all too open to the complainant to proceed under any of the two penal laws available to him.

Decision
We are satisfied that the learned Magistrate duly applied his judicial mind into the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record and rightly framed charge against the accused-petitioner under section 420 of the Penal Code. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity occasioning failure of justice. We find no substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The application is rejected summarily.

Advocate Amjad Hossain for the petitioner.

 









      (C) Copyright The Daily Star. The Daily Star Internet Edition, is published by The Daily Star