Defending a Cheque Bounce Case Bangladesh: What the Law Requires and How to Win

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the complainant must prove all four of these elements to obtain a conviction:

1. The cheque was issued by the accused (not forged or issued under duress)
2. The cheque was presented within six months of the date it was issued
3. The bank dishonoured it due to insufficient funds (not a bank error or technical issue)
4. The accused received the legal demand notice and failed to pay the amount within 30 days of receipt

If any one element is missing, the case fails entirely. This is why an experienced criminal lawyer in Dhaka examines the complaint carefully before even fielding a plea — many cases have defects that can be identified and exploited immediately.

The most important action you can take after receiving a legal notice is to act within 30 days of receipt:

• If the cheque amount is genuinely owed and you can pay, pay it within 30 days — this completely prevents the case from being filed
• If you dispute the debt or the notice, immediately consult a lawyer — your response strategy must be prepared now
• Do NOT ignore the notice. Ignoring it is treated as a refusal to pay, and the case will be filed against you within one month of the 30-day deadline

Once a case is filed in Magistrate Court and summons are issued, your options become more limited. The 30-day window is your best opportunity.

The following defences have been successfully argued in Bangladesh courts under Section 138:

• Cheque was a security cheque — issued as a guarantee, not to pay an existing debt
• Legal notice not properly served — sent to wrong address, or not actually received
• Underlying debt is disputed — the alleged loan never existed or was a gift
• Cheque was post-dated and presented before the due date
• Cheque was stolen or forged — you did not issue it
• Limitation period expired — the complaint was filed more than one month after the 30-day notice period

The right defence depends entirely on the specific facts of your case. A criminal lawyer in Uttara will identify which ground applies and build the strongest argument around it.

If the cheque was issued as security — as a guarantee for a future obligation that has not yet been fulfilled or has been cancelled — the debt or liability did not exist at the time of dishonour. Section 138 requires that the cheque was issued 'in discharge of a debt or other liability.' A security cheque with no crystallised debt does not meet this element.

Evidence to gather: any written agreement stating the cheque was security, WhatsApp messages between parties discussing the arrangement, bank transfer records showing the underlying transaction never happened, and witness statements.

The 30-day payment window under Section 138(b) only starts running from the actual receipt of the legal demand notice by the accused. If the notice:

• Was sent to the wrong address
• Was returned unclaimed without the accused actually receiving it
• Was sent by ordinary post with no proof of delivery
• Was sent to an old address the accused no longer lives at

...then the notice requirement may not be properly satisfied, and the entire case can fail at the threshold. Courts have dismissed cases on this ground alone. Carefully check the address on the notice and compare it to your registered address on NID.

You can challenge whether the underlying debt that gave rise to the cheque actually exists. If the alleged 'loan' was:

• Actually a gift (heba), not a loan
• A business transaction that was later cancelled by mutual agreement
• Based on a fabricated or forged receipt
• Already repaid by other means (bank transfer evidence)

...then you have a solid factual defence. The burden ultimately shifts to the complainant to prove the underlying liability. This defence is most powerful when you have documentary evidence — bank statements, receipts, screenshots of conversations — contradicting the complainant's version.

If the cheque was post-dated (issued with a future date) and was presented to the bank before the date written on the cheque, there may be a valid defence. The bank may have dishonoured it for a different technical reason (not insufficient funds), or the maturity of the underlying obligation may not have occurred yet.

Additionally, under some circumstances, presenting a post-dated cheque before its due date makes the early presentation defective, potentially meaning the 6-month limitation period runs from the cheque date — not the early presentation date — which may affect whether the complaint was filed within time.

Here is how a typical cheque dishonour case unfolds in Bangladesh:

• Cheque dishonour → Legal notice: Must be sent within 30 days of dishonour
• Notice receipt → Payment deadline: 30 days for the accused to pay
• Filing of complaint: Within 1 month of failed payment deadline
• Magistrate issues summons: 2–4 weeks after complaint is accepted
• Accused appears in court: Next hearing date (30–60 days typically)
• Trial proceedings: 6 months to 3 years depending on court backlog

Most cases in Bangladesh are resolved before trial completion — either through payment, compromise, or the complainant's failure to pursue the case. An experienced lawyer will advise the most efficient exit strategy for your specific situation.

If convicted under Section 138 NI Act, the court may impose:

• Imprisonment: Up to 1 year
• Fine: Up to three times the cheque amount
• Both imprisonment and fine

In practice, first offenders who engage with the legal process rarely face imprisonment. Most courts impose a fine (compensation to the complainant) plus court costs. However, a conviction creates a criminal record which can affect employment, travel, and future legal proceedings.

Successful defence — or settlement before conviction — avoids both the penalty and the reputational damage entirely. For urgent assistance in a cheque case, contact a criminal lawyer in Dhaka immediately.

Cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act is a compoundable offence — meaning the parties can legally agree to settle and have the case withdrawn with court permission. Settlement is worth considering if:

• The debt is partially valid and the amount is negotiable
• The evidence against you is strong and the risk of conviction is real
• The complainant is open to negotiation
• A quick resolution would prevent business or reputational damage

A settlement typically involves paying a negotiated amount (less than the full cheque amount) in exchange for the complainant withdrawing the case. Your lawyer handles the negotiation and ensures the withdrawal is properly recorded in court.

Yes — if you pay the full cheque amount within 30 days of receiving the legal notice, the offence under Section 138 is neutralised and no criminal case can be filed. Once a case is filed, payment may still lead to compounding (settlement) with court permission.

Technically yes — it is a criminal offence carrying up to 1 year imprisonment. However, imprisonment for first offenders who engage constructively with the legal process is rare in Bangladesh courts. Most cases end in a fine or settlement.

Personal loans are fully covered by Section 138 NI Act. The complainant must prove the underlying liability. If the 'loan' is disputed or was actually a gift, your lawyer can challenge the factual basis of the complaint at trial.

Yes. If the cheque case is fabricated — for example, the cheque was stolen or forged — you can file a criminal complaint for forgery, criminal breach of trust, or extortion. This creates a counter-case that pressures the complainant and often leads to settlement.

A pending case does not affect credit score directly, but a conviction can create reputational issues. Cheque cases alone do not prevent passport renewal or travel, but if a court-order is violated (such as failing to pay a court-ordered fine), enforcement actions can follow.

Court fees for the complainant are minimal. For the accused (defendant), legal representation costs are the primary expense — typically ৳15,000–৳50,000 for a Magistrate Court case through to verdict, depending on complexity.