Negotiable Instruments Act 2025

Only days before did the Ministry of Law (MoL) reject the draft of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain (Money Loan Court Act), suggesting amendment to the existing laws instead of getting ready a whole new Act. Now the council of advisers of the interim government has approved a similar but stringent law, the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA) 2025. As its title suggests, the Act was formulated last year. Following the advisory council's approval, it now awaits enactment through an ordinance by this administration. Evidently, the draft NIA 2025 was there when the rejected Money Loan Court was being formulated by local and foreign experts. This is a serious case of overlapping and it involved expenditure on a needless exercise.
Now the focus ought to be directed primarily to NIA 2025 Act for understanding how far it can go to arrest financial crimes or try the crimes already committed. Can this law cover the whole gamut of financial crimes and guarantee failsafe monetary transactions? Reportedly, the NIA Act covers financial instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. But the emphasis here is on resolving disputes involving cheque dishonour. When parties agree on payments through cheques, not cash and on-line transactions, and those bounce, the disputes may go to court for reasonable settlements. But taking recourse to such legal settlements is not backed by the delayed procedures of court trial. This NIA Act is going to help first-track such cases with metropolitan and first class magistrates receiving the mandate for hearing the disputed cases. No doubt, the range and scope of arbitration will expand but will the quality of trial improve in the process? If the mobile courts conducted by magistrates are any guide, there is hardly any reason for becoming effusive. People will keep their fingers crossed lest the healing power of the antidote is compromised.
Evidently, driving the momentum of case disposal by the courts is a priority but it has to be done through fair trials. The magistracy power is mostly used for summary trial. Financial documents of complex nature should not fall within the purview of legal immediacy. Importantly, where cheques issued for loan repayment bounce because of no money or insufficient fund in the issuing party's bank account, this poses a serious proposition for arbitration. For the judiciary to successfully handle the pressure of financial disputes of severe nature, specialised financial courts would be the right answer. Something like the BB-proposed Money Loan Court Act would be an answer to such problems.
There is, however, no problem for magistracy to serve as adjunct court to settle simple cheque-dishonour cases. This is why the limit of disputed amount must not exceed Tk500,000. But for magistrates to serve as arbiter should also be made accountable to higher courts in order to ensure that they do not abuse power. Extension of jurisprudence to the level of magistrates is good and pragmatic as long as the system adheres to the principles of rules and laws. The provision of harsher punishment for cheque dishonour is imprisonment for six months to two years. This is followed by mandatory deposition of 50 per cent of the cheque amount before appealing to the higher court. Well, such legal provisions may act as a deterrent to cheque dishonour as well as frivolous appeal but no guarantee for total elimination of cheque bounce.