IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

          Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Criminal Revision No. 5646 of 2024

In the matter of:

An application under section 439 read with section  435  of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1898.

And

In the matter of:

Raju Ahmed

   ... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner                    -Versus-

The State and another

                          ... Opposite parties

Mr. Ferogul Islam (Feroz) with

Mr. Md. Shamim Khan, Advocates

                                 ... For the Petitioner

Ms. Sadia Tasmin, Advocate

…  For the Opposite party No.2

Mr. S.M. Aminul Islam Sanu, D.A.G with          Mr. Md. Nasimul Hasan, A.A.G with

Mr. Md. Golamun Nabi, A.A.G and

Ms. Farhana Abedin, A.A.G and

…  For the State

Heard on: 04.03.2026

Judgment on: 10.03.2026

This 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 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional  Sessions  Judge,  2nd  Court,  Dhaka  in  Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2019 dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Dhaka in Sessions Case No. 478 of 2016 arising out of C.R. Case No. 15 of 2015 (Savar) convicting the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and  sentencing  him  to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for 7(seven) months and also to pay a fine of Tk. 11,25,000/- (eleven  lac  twenty  five  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.

The facts, relevant for disposal of the Rule, in short are that, the accused obtained a loan from the complainant on 02.04.2013 for business purposes. In order to repay the loan amount the accused issued 3 cheques being Nos. IBG9254303 dated  30.05.2014  for  Taka  3,75,000/-;  IBG9254304  dated 30.07.2014  for  Taka  3,75,000/-  and  IBG  9254305  dated 30.09.2014  for  Taka  3,75,000/-  totaling  Taka  11,25,000/-, drawn on Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited, Savar Branch, Dhaka.  The  complainant  presented  the  cheques  to  the concerned  bank  on  13.10.2014  but  the  same  were dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficiency of fund”. Thereafter  the  complainant  served  a  legal  notice  on 12.11.2014 demanding payment of the cheque amount but the petitioner  failed  to  make  payment.  Consequently,  the complainant filed C.R. Case No. 15 of 2015 (Savar) before the Senior Judicial Magistrate, Cognizance Court, Dhaka on 11.01.2015.  The  cognizance  Court  took  cognizance  of  the offence and sent the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhaka. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhaka transferred the case to the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Dhaka and was registered as Sessions Case No. 478 of 2016. Charge was framed against the accused on 19.02.2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the charge was read over and explained to him. In course of trial, the prosecution examined  01(one)  witness  and  produced  documentary

evidence which were marked as exhibit-1 series to prove the indictment.

Upon  hearing  the  parties,  the  learned  Joint  Sessions Judge,  7th   Court,  Dhaka  convicted  the  petitioner  under Section  138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  1881  and sentenced  him  simple  imprisonment  for  07(seven)  months and a fine of Taka 11,25,000/- by judgment and order dated 22.08.2019.

Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused- persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2019 before the learned  Sessions  Judge,  Dhaka.  On  transfer  the  learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated 22.03.2022, the petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revisions before this Court and obtained Rule and

bail.

During the hearing of the criminal revision, the learned Advocates  appearing  for  both  the  parties  jointly  filed  an

application  praying  for recording  a  compromise  arrived  at between the parties.

Mr.  Ferogul  Islam  Feroz,  the  learned  Advocate appearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  submits  that  the petitioner earlier deposited Taka 5,62,500/- before the trial Court and during the pendency of this criminal revision the petitioner paid the remaining amount of Taka 5,62,500/- on 08.03.2026. Thus the petitioner has paid the entire cheque as well as the fine totaling Taka 11,25,000/-. He further submits that since the petitioner paid the entire cheque amount and fine, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him.

Per contra, Ms. Sadia Tasnim, the learned Advocate appearing  for  the  opposite  party  no.  2  endorses  the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and candidly admits that the opposite party has received the entire amount of the cheque as well as the fine.

In this regard, both the parties (petitioner and opposite party no.2) appeared before this court and admitted that they have  voluntarily  executed  the  deed  of  compromise (Annexure-1) appended to the application for compromise. The complainant- opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner were duly identified by their respective learned Advocates.

I have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties and  perused  the  application  together  with  the  deed  of compromise (Annexure-1). It appears that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute land and executed the deed of  compromise  as  evident  from  Annexure-1  of  the application.

Although  the  offence  under  section  138  of  the Negotiable  Instruments Act  is  not  a  compoundable,  the parties have jointly prayed for recording the compromise and for disposal of the case in terms of the compromise by setting aside  the  judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and  sentence passed against the petitioner. In this regard, reliance may be placed  on  the  decisions  passed  in  the  case  of  Subash Chandra Sarker Versus. The State and another, reported in 26 BLT(AD) 28, Haroon-or-Rashid Vs. The State, reported in  76  DLR(2024)  23  and  Bulbul  Sharif  (Md.)  Vs.  State, reported  in  68  DLR(2016)  314  and  find  substance  in  the application.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates  for  both  the  parties  and  the  facts  and circumstances of the case and the deed of compromise dated 08.03.2026, this court is inclined to allow the application for recording  compromise  and  to  accept  the  said  deed  of compromise.

Accordingly, the application for recording compromise between the parties is allowed.

In the result, the Criminal Revision is disposed of in terms of the compromise deed dated 08.03.2026.

Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside and the convict-petitioner is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. The convict-petitioner is released from his bail bond.

Send down the lower Court’s records (LCR) at once. Communicate this judgment and order to the Court concerned forthwith.

(Md. Bashir Ullah, J.)

Md. Ariful Islam Khan

Bench Officer