Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asif Faiyed - 191011115 - Final Exam
Asif Faiyed - 191011115 - Final Exam
Moreover, under the Act of 1881, the bank also has the right to establish its
claim through a civil court if the whole or any part of the value of the cheque
remains unrealized. Since the Act of 1881 allows banks to pursue their claims
simultaneously through a civil court, it can be seen that banks are regularly
filing civil claims against the borrower for reimbursement of the loan amount
(covered by the same cheque) under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 (in English:
The Money Loan Courts Act 2003) and, simultaneously, a complaint case for
the dishonoring of the same cheque under the Act of 1881. Although numerous
cases have been filed against this right on grounds of double jeopardy,
eventually it has been settled by the Supreme Court that it is well established
that criminal proceedings can proceed independently of the civil suit.
Since offenses under the Act of 1881 are separate under a special law, it has
nothing to do with the civil claim. Therefore, it is an established position in law
that there are no legal restrictions on banks to commence proceedings under
Section 138 of the Act of 1881 simultaneously with a civil suit under the Act of
2003. Although one could argue that it is unfair that the bank has the right to
file a civil suit simultaneously with a case under the Act of 1881 for the same
loan amount (in effect), such arguments and/or sympathy have no place to
stand in such situations where the law is crystal clear. Also, it is important to
note that the Act of 1881 does not specifically categorize or qualify any cheque
on grounds of its nature or purpose. Although many borrowers have
challenged the validity or legality of security cheques, on grounds that, inter
alia, it is not a negotiable instrument per se, the legal recognition of security
cheques has been positively decided by the Supreme Court in Bangladesh
with the result that security cheques are valid under the laws of Bangladesh.
The Supreme Court had held that since the legislature did not make any
difference regarding a postdated cheque issued as security for the repayment
of the loan availed by the borrower, under the Act of 1881, there is no basis for
making any such difference through a judicial interpretation. Again, one could
argue that, at the time of giving the cheque as security, the borrower did not
know or contemplate that it would default and an offense would be
committed under the Act of 1881 at a later date thereby arguing that there was
no men`s rea at the relevant time to commit the offense, which is essential for
any criminal offense. However, it is unlikely that such arguments would suffice
or be upheld by the courts in Bangladesh since an offense under the Act of 1881
is strict and only requires the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 138 of
the Act of 1881 (as stated above) nothing more, nothing less.