সতর্কীকরণ! বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে বিডি কানুন কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Submissions for Negotiable Instruments Act
70 DLR (2018) 303
Submissions on behalf of the Accused Petitioner
Mr. Sikder Mahmudur Razi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused- petitioner, takes us through the petition of complaint and draws our attention to the dates of placing the cheque, sending legal notice by registered post & returning of the same without being received, publication of notice in the daily newspaper, filing of the complaint petition and, side-by-side, also takes us through the provisions of sections 138 & 141 of the NI Act and submits that no offence is disclosed in the petition of complaint under the aforesaid provisions of law and, thus, continuation of the proceedings in question is an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that this Miscellaneous Case under section 561A of the CrPC deserves to be considered positively by this Court and to substantiate his submission, he refers to the case of SM Anwar Hossain v. Shafiul Alam, 4 BLC (AD) 106. Then, Mr. Razi takes us through the application filed by the accused under section 265C of the CrPC and contends that the complainant managed to steal a blank cheque from the accused, capitalizing on their intimacy and, eventually, when the accused filed a criminal case under sections 9(1) & 10 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain, 2000 read with section 57 of the Taththa Prozukti Ain, 2006, the complainant used the said stolen cheque to file this false case, with forged signature of the accused. In this connection, he further contends that the story of taking loan by the accused-lady from the complainant during pendency of the Nari-o-Shishu Case No. 127 of 2015 filed by the accused-lady against the complainant, amply suggests that the case is preposterous, as no human being with ordinary prudence would believe the above story. Mr. Sikder Mahmudur Razi submits that there are scores of case laws of our jurisdiction and that of this sub-continent that a preposterous criminal case should be nipped in the bud by the High Court Division exercising its power under section 561A of the CrPC. In support of his above submissions, he refers to the case of Syed Ehsan Abdullah v. State 2017(1) L&J 135.
Submissions on behalf of the Opposite Parties
Per contra, Mr. Md Jafor Ali, the learned Advocate for the complainant-opposite party No. 2, by taking us through the averments of the accused application under section 265C of the CrPC, contends that admittedly there was a love affair between the complainant & the accused and, taking advantage of the relationship, when the accused-lady requested the complainant to help her by giving loan of Taka 40,00,000 (forty lacs), the complainant had agreed to help her by taking the cheque in question from the
accused-lady. He further contends that the accused-lady, later on, filed Nari-o-Shishu case against the complainant as a weapon in an attempt to save herself from repayment of the loan money. He then takes us through the petition of complaint and submits that whether the legal notice was sent or published within the statutory period or if the case has been filed within the time are the questions of fact to be decided by the trial Court by taking evidence. By referring to the case of Zahidul Islam v. Md Kamal Hossain, 66 DLR (AD) 180, Mr. Jafor Ali endeavours to persuade us that if filing of a case under section 138 of the NI Act before the stipulated period is permitted in law, then there should not be an absolute bar to file a case under section 138 of the NI Act after expiry of the prescribed period of sending written demand notice.
আপনার কাঙ্খিত নজীরটি খুঁজে পাননি! এ বিষয়ে আরও নজীর পেতে নিচের বাটনে ক্লিক করুন।
