সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Whether Bank Can File Case Under Section 406/420 Against Loan Defaulter
Case Overview:
The case revolves around a loan taken by Mr. MA Sukkur (the appellant) from Bangladesh Shilpa Bank. When Mr. Sukkur defaulted on the loan, the bank's Assistant General Manager, Mr. Md. Zahirul Haque (Respondent No. 1), filed a criminal case against him in 1997 under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Penal Code, as well as section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (related to dishonored checks).
Background:
- Mr. Sukkur had taken a loan of 3,355,000 Taka to establish a textile mill.
- Due to non-payment, the bank had already initiated a civil case (Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1992) to recover the dues.
- Mr. Sukkur was later given the option to repay the loan in 12 quarterly installments.
- As part of this arrangement, he issued two checks: one for 50,000 Taka and another for 397,875 Taka.
- The first check was honored, but the second check bounced multiple times due to insufficient funds. This led to the criminal case.
Legal Proceedings:
- Lower Court: The Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against Mr. Sukkur under section 420 of the Penal Code (cheating).
- Sessions Court: Mr. Sukkur filed revisional application to the Sessions Judge, but the revision was unsuccessful.
- High Court Division: Mr. Sukkur then filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (No. 152 of 2001) in the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (inherent powers of the High Court). The High Court dismissed this case in 2003.
- Supreme Court: Mr. Sukkur finally appealed to the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2005).
Supreme Court Judgment (2014):
The Supreme Court overturned the previous decisions and quashed the criminal proceedings against Mr. Sukkur. The key points of their judgment were:
- The dispute was primarily of a civil nature, related to a loan agreement. The bank had already initiated civil proceedings to recover the dues.
- The mere bouncing of a check does not automatically constitute a criminal offense, especially under section 420 of the Penal Code (cheating).
- Normal financial transactions between a debtor and creditor do not fall within the scope of criminal offenses. The court emphasized that a simple loan default should not be criminalized.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court's decision essentially stated that the matter should be resolved through civil proceedings (for debt recovery) rather than criminal proceedings. It reinforced the principle that routine loan defaults should not be treated as criminal acts of cheating unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset.
Source: BLR 2014 (AD) 265
ALR 5 (AD) 27
BLC 23 (AD) 148
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."