High Court Division · Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Rabiul Islam Sumon v The State and another
Criminal Revision 313/2026 · Decided 16 August 2026
The petitioner issued two cheques totalling Tk 9,50,000 to the complainant in discharge of a loan; both were dishonoured for insufficient funds and he did not pay after receiving the statutory notice. The Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla convicted him while absconding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Tk 9,50,000, and the Sessions Judge, Cumilla dismissed his appeal. Before seeking revision he deposited Tk 4,75,000, half the cheque amount, with the trial court. The High Court Division found that the complainant had complied with section 138, filed within time and proved consideration, so the conviction was lawful. Relying on Aman Ullah v State (73 DLR 541), it observed that the principal object of the Act is recovery of the cheque amount rather than incarceration. It set aside the imprisonment, upheld the fine, directed release of the deposit to the complainant and payment of the balance within three months, and discharged the Rule with modification.
- Q1
Whether the conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of two cheques totalling Tk 9,50,000 was sustainable.
- Q2
Whether the sentence of six months' imprisonment should stand where the petitioner had deposited half the cheque amount.
- Where the complainant complied with section 138, filed within one month of the cause of action under clause (c) of its proviso and proved consideration and holding in due course, the concurrent conviction suffered from no illegality.
- The principal object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to ensure recovery of the cheque amount rather than to incarcerate the drawer, and imprisonment should ordinarily be resorted to only in appropriate circumstances (following Aman Ullah v State, 73 DLR 541).
- The sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was set aside and the fine of Tk 9,50,000, equivalent to the cheque amount, was upheld.
- The deposited Tk 4,75,000 was to be disbursed to the complainant and the balance paid within three months, in default one month's simple imprisonment, without exemption from the fine, which may be recovered under section 386 of the Code.
this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given a few months to pay the rest amount and the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside in the interest of justice.
In the court’s own words.
Criminal Revision 313/2026, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 9 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
2(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah
Criminal Revision No. 313 of 2026
In the matter of:
An application under section 439 read with
435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
-And-
In the matter of:
Md. Rabiul Islam Sumon
… Convict-Appellant-Petitioner
-Versus-
The State and another
…Complainant-Respondent-Opposite Parties
Mr. Md. Akramul Haque Baki, Advocate
… For the Convict- Petitioner
Mr. Amit Das Gupta, Advocate
… For the Complainant- opposite party No. 2
Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, D.A.G with
Mr. Md. Sirajul Karim (Rabi), A.A.G and
Mr. Md. Nurul Karim (Biplob), A.A.G
… For the State
Heard on: 04.08.2026 and 06.08.2026
Judgment on: 16.08.2026
3This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the
judgment and order dated 26.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cumilla in Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2022 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2022 passed by the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla in Sessions Case No. 344 of 2022, arising out of C.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 convicting the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 06(six) months and to pay a fine of Tk. 9,50,000/- (nine lac fifty thousand), should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.
4The facts, relevant for disposal of the Rule, in brief, are that, the accused obtained a loan of Taka 9,50,000/-(nine lac fifty thousand) from the complainant. In discharge of the said
CB
5liability, he issued 02(two) cheques being Nos. CD 8043915 dated 15.02.2021 for Taka 4,50,000/-(four lac fifty thousand)
6CB and CD 8043916 dated 15.02.2021 for Taka 5,00,000/-(five lac) both drawn on City Bank Limited, Cumilla in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheques for
encashment to the concerned bank on 17.06.2021, however both were dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficiency of funds” on 20.06.2021. Thereafter, he served statutory legal notice upon the accused on 22.06.2021 which was duly received by the accused on 25.06.2021 but the petitioner failed to make payment within the statutory period. Consequently, the complainant instituted C.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 before the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Cognizance Court No. 8, Cumilla on 19.08.2021. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and sent the case record to the Court of Sessions Judge, Cumilla. The learned Sessions Judge, Cumilla transferred the case to the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla and was registered as Sessions Case No. 344 of 2022. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 27.04.2022 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the charge was read out and explained before him.
7In course of trial, the prosecution examined 01(one) witness. The accused could not be examined under Section
342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he remained absconding.
8Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months and fine of Taka 9,50,000/- by judgment and order dated 01.06.2022.
9Challenging the conviction and sentence the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Cumilla without depositing the 50% of the cheque amount. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the parties dismissed the same by judgment and order dated 26.02.2023 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
10Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated 26.02.2023, the petitioner preferred this instant Criminal Revision before this Court and obtained Rule. The petitioner deposited 50% of the cheque amount amounting to Taka 4,75,000/- on 25.01.2026 before the trial Court before preferring this instant revisional application. Pending hearing
of the Rule, this Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on 01.02.2026.
11Mr. Md. Akramul Haque Baki, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below failed to apply their judicial minds and committed error of law in passing the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence and the prosecution has failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner.
12He further submits that the petitioner had already deposited 50% of the cheque amount. He further submits that the petitioner is in financial distressed circumstance and seeks reasonable time to discharge the remaining liability.
13He finally prays for making the Rule absolute.
14Per contra, Mr. Amit Das Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that, there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the impugned judgments and orders. The Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and as such the Rule is liable to be discharged.
15I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the revisional application and the materials on record.
16It appears from the petition of complaint, the deposition of PW1 (complainant) and the documentary evidence that the accused obtained a loan of Taka 9,50,000/-(nine lac fifty thousand) from the complainant. In discharge of the said
CB
17liability, he issued 02(two) cheques being Nos. CD 8043915 dated 15.02.2021 for Taka 4,50,000/-(four lac fifty thousand)
18CB and CD 8043916 dated 15.02.2021 for Taka 5,00,000/-(five lac) drawn on City Bank Limited, Cumilla in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment to the concerned bank on 17.06.2021 but it was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficiency of funds” on 20.06.2021. Thereafter, he served statutory legal notice upon the accused on 22.06.2021 which was received by the accused on 25.06.2021 but the petitioner failed to make payment within the statutory period. Consequently, the case was filed on 19.08.2021. PW1 successfully established the prosecution case.
19The record shows that the complainant has duly complied with the procedures laid down in Section 138 of the Act, 1881 in filing the case. The case was filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action had arisen under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138. The complainant also proved consideration against which the cheque was drawn and that he is the holder of the cheque in due course. The Courts below righty found the petitioner guilty of the charge. I find no misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or infirmity.
20However, with regards to the sentence, reliance may be placed upon the decision passed in Aman Ullah Vs. State, reported in 73 DLR (2021) 541, wherein this Court observed that in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the sentence of imprisonment would be a harsh sentence having no penal objective to be achieved. I respectfully concur with the principle enunciated therein. The principal object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to ensure recovery of the cheque amount rather than to incarcerate the
drawer and that imprisonment should ordinarily be resorted to only in appropriate circumstances.
21It appears from the order sheet of Joint Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla vide order No. 14 dated 25.01.2026, the petitioner deposited 50% of the cheque amount, Taka 4,75,000/-.
22Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given a few months to pay the rest amount and the sentence of imprisonment should be set aside in the interest of justice.
23In view of the foregoing discussions and ratio the order of the Court is as follows:
24The conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 is affirmed, however the sentence of imprisonment is modified. The sentence of 06(six) months simple imprisonment is set aside. The sentence of fine of Taka 9,50,000/- which is equivalent to the cheque amount is upheld. The convict-petitioner has already deposited Taka 4,75,000/- before the trial Court. The Court concerned is directed to disburse the said deposited money to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 forthwith. The convict-
petitioner is directed to deposit the remaining portion of the dishonoured cheque i.e. Taka 4,75,000/- to the complainantopposite party No. 2 through trial Court within 03(three) months from the date of receipt of this judgment, in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 01(one) month. If the convict-petitioner does not pay the remaining portion of the fine as ordered or opts to serve out the period of imprisonment in lieu of payment of fine, he is not exempted from paying the same. In that event, the Court concerned shall recover the fine under the provisions of Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25In the result, the Rule is discharged with modification of sentence of imprisonment and with directions made above. The convict-petitioner is released from his bail bond.
26Send down the lower Court’s records (LCR) at once. Communicate the judgment and order to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Md. Bashir Ullah, J)
27Md. Ariful Islam Khan Bench Officer
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
