AKM FAYEKUZZAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on an application under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the informant petitioner against the order dated 09.02.2009 for framing charge against the accused petitioner which was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rangpur in Sessions case No. 383 of 2008 arising out of CR case No. 300 of 2008 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 now pending before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka as Metro. Sessions case No. 858 of 2010.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short is that one Rejena Begum, proprietor of Nepa Enterprise, filed CR Case No. 300 of 2008 against AKM Fayekuz-zaman, proprietor of M/S. Khandoker Business International stating, inter alia, that the complai-nant is a contractor and her husband Md. Eakub Ali is a 1st Class Government officer who is acquainted with the accused who is a reputed 1st class contractor; that the accused approached to the complainant that he got five work orders whose contract value stands at Taka 13,17,36,515.60; that he needs some money for the completion of those works; that the accused expected to earn taka about more than two crores out of those works and he would pay complainant half of the profit if she gave him some money and that the complain-ant as per the proposal of the accused gave loan of Taka 2,25,00000/= within 23.09.2006 to 21.02.2008.

(3.) It is further stated that the complainant, later on, pressed the accused to repay his loan and accordingly the accused issued a cheque of taka 1,50,00,000.00 being No. NCCB/C 5710308 from his current account No. 01016899 of NCC Bank Ltd. Rangpur; that later on when the complainant again pressed the accused to repay his loan with profit, then the accused again issued a cheque of Taka 75,00,000/= ; that the complainant placed the cheque of taka 1,50,00,000/= in the relevant bank for encashment but the cheque was dishonored; that the complainant approached to accused for immediate repayment of loan but he failed for which the complainant issued legal notice on 03.06.2008 to the accused through his lawyer which was received by the office of the accused on 08.06.2008 but the accused did not take any step to repay the loan; that in reply to the legal notice the accused stated that there was a written contract between them, which is not correct and that when the complainant presumed that the accused would not repay the loan, then she was compelled to file the case against the accused petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.