High Court: Cheque Dishonour Case Can Be Proved Even Without a Dishonour Slip

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Although a bank’s “dishonour slip” or return memo is important evidence of cheque dishonour, it is not the only means of proving that a cheque was dishonoured, the High Court has said. The court observed that if the presentation and dishonour of a cheque are established through other admissible evidence, a criminal case cannot fail merely because the dishonour slip is unavailable.

Justice Md. Bashir Ullah made the observation in a recent judgment. In Criminal Appeal No. 6867 of 2018, Nizam Uddin Mahmud v. Nazina Hasin, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal of accused Nazina Hasin. At the same time, the court convicted her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentencing her to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Tk 2.5 million. The judgment was delivered on 13 September 2026 and published on 17 October, 2026 on the website of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 

Facts of the Case

The complainant, Nizam Uddin Mahmud, was involved in stock trading and stock exchange business. Following various transactions with the accused, a substantial amount became payable to the complainant. Later, on 26 April 2012, the parties reached a settlement. Under that settlement, the accused issued five cheques to the complainant to discharge the legally enforceable debt.

One of the cheques, numbered 1028081, was dated 20 May 2012 and was for Tk 2.5 million. When the cheque was deposited with the bank on 10 September 2012, it was dishonoured on 11 September due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was then sent to the accused on 19 September and delivered to her address on 25 September. As she failed to pay the amount within the prescribed period, the case was filed on 21 November 2012.

Acquittal by the Trial Court

Both the complainant and the accused produced one witness each. After hearing the case, the Metropolitan Joint Sessions Judge, First Court, Dhaka, acquitted the accused on 14 March 2018. The complainant challenged that judgment before the High Court.

During the appeal, the issue of the cheque’s dishonour slip arose. On the High Court’s direction, additional evidence was recorded. A bank-certified dishonour slip and the original bank statement were submitted. Although the accused was present when the additional evidence was recorded, she did not cross-examine the complainant or raise any objection to the documents produced.

Loss of the Dishonour Slip Does Not Destroy the Evidence

The High Court said in its judgment that the complainant had submitted the dishonour slip as an exhibit while giving evidence. According to the court record, it had also been marked as Exhibit 2. Although the original document could not later be found in the record, the fact that it had previously been submitted and exhibited before the court could not be disregarded merely because the document was subsequently unavailable.

The court further said that the original bank statement clearly established that the cheque had been dishonoured on 11 September 2012 due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused solely because the dishonour slip was unavailable was not legally sustainable.

Objection Regarding Service of Legal Notice Rejected

Nazina Hasin had provided her address as Rooms 311 and 312 of the Dhaka Stock Exchange Building in Motijheel, Dhaka. The complainant sent the legal notice by registered post to that address, and the acknowledgment due card provided evidence that the notice had been received.

The High Court said that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a legal presumption arises that a notice sent by registered post to the correct address has been duly served. The accused failed to produce any evidence capable of rebutting that presumption.

Claim That the Cheques Were ‘Security Cheques’ Was Insufficient

The accused claimed that the three cheques in question had been issued as security. However, during cross-examination, she admitted issuing five cheques, and her statement also referred to the issuance of those cheques after the settlement with the complainant. In addition, a letter of representation submitted by the accused to the chief executive officer of the Dhaka Stock Exchange also mentioned the issuance of five cheques.

The High Court said that once the signature and issuance of a cheque are admitted or proved, the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into operation. A mere oral claim that the cheque was a “security cheque” or that no debt existed is not sufficient to rebut that presumption; credible and admissible evidence is required.

Dishonour Slip Is Not the Only Evidence

The High Court’s important observation was that a bank dishonour slip or return memo is a strong means of proving that a cheque was returned unpaid, but it is not the only or indispensable means of proof.

The court said that in a case under Section 138, the essential issues are whether the cheque was presented, whether it was dishonoured, whether a legal notice was served, and whether the amount remained unpaid within the prescribed period. If these matters are established through other admissible and credible evidence, the case will not fail merely because the dishonour slip is unavailable.

According to the court, the trial court had placed excessive emphasis on the absence of the dishonour slip and had failed to assess the overall effect of the evidence. Such an approach amounted to an overly technical view of the evaluation of evidence.

Acquittal Set Aside, Six Months’ Imprisonment

Ultimately, the High Court held that the complainant had successfully proved the cheque liability, presentation of the cheque, dishonour, service of the legal notice, and failure to make payment within the prescribed period. The trial court’s acquittal was set aside as legally unsustainable.

The appeal was therefore allowed, and Nazina Hasin was convicted under Section 138. She was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and fined Tk 2.5 million. The fine was ordered to be paid to the complainant. She was also directed to surrender before the trial court within 30 days of receiving a copy of the judgment.

BD Law Post/Masum