LAWS(BANG)-1999-2-4

SM ANWAR HOSSAIN Vs. MD. SHAFIUL ALAM (CHAND)

Decided On February 03, 1999
Sm Anwar Hossain Appellant
V/S
Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave arises out of a judgment and order dated 1st December, 1996 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division rejecting an application for quashing of the proceeding of CR Case No. 227 of 1996 pending against the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Rangpur under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 1994, briefly, the Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 as complainant filed a petition of complaint on 18 April, 1996 alleging, inter alia, that the accused appellant, a Contractor of the Water Development Board at Rangpur, used to take loan from the complainant, that in connection with one of his works, the appellant requested the complainant to work as a Coordinator and a contract was executed, that the appellant took Taka 6,00,000.00 as security money from the complainant, that the appellant withdrew bills on several occasions but did not return the security money to the complainant in spite of repeated demands whereupon the complainant sent a legal notice on 5-12-95, that on 21-12-95 the appellant in presence of witnesses handed over a cheque of Taka 6,75,000.00 drawn on National Bank, that the complainant deposited the cheque on 23-12-95 in his account at Uttara Bank but the same was dishonoured on the same date, that on 24-12-95 the complainant sent a legal notice for payment of the said amount, that on receipt of the said notice the appellant in order to avoid payment fraudulently informed the complainant through lawyer on 4-1-96 that he had lost the cheque written in the complainants name and made a GD entry in that behalf, and that it was clear from the conduct of the accused that he was a cheat and he created the story of losing the cheque in order to fraudulently misappropriate the money of the complainant.

(3.) The learned Magistrate on the aforesaid allegations took cognizance under section 138 of the Act and issued process against the appellant whereupon the appellant appeared before the Court and obtained bail on 19 September 1996.