Nadeera Kabeer vs Zeena Jomon
2026 Latest Caselaw 2575 Ker

Kerala High Court

Nadeera Kabeer vs Zeena Jomon on 6 April, 2026

                                                               2026:KER:29265
Crl.R.P.No.120/2019
                                         -:1:-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

       MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                             CRL.REV.PET NO. 120 OF 2019

       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2018 IN Crl.A NO.248 OF
  2014 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR ARISING FROM
            CC NO.959 OF 2011 OF JFCM, NO.II,THRISSUR

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED:

                      NADEERA KABEER,​
                      AGED 42 YEARS,​
                      W/O KABEER,
                      RAYAMMARAKKAR HOUSE,
                      GURUVAYUR,
                      THRISSUR DISTRICT.


                      BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT​
                               SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN​



RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

        1             ZEENA JOMON​
                      PROPRIETRIX,
                      M/S. JOSE BROTHERS,
                      GOLD SUPER MARKET,
                      VADANAPPILLY, REP BY P.O.A HOLDER P.R. BIJUKUMAR,
                      S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,
                      PANDARAN HOUSE,
                      MANALUR,
                      THRISSUR.

        2             STATE OF KERALA​
                      REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
                                                             2026:KER:29265
Crl.R.P.No.120/2019
                                         -:2:-

                      BY ADVS.SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
                              SMT. ANIMA M. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                              ADV. MR.ATUL PAULOSE


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30.03.2026, THE COURT ON 06.04.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                     2026:KER:29265
Crl.R.P.No.120/2019
                                           -:3:-


                                          ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.959/2011 on the files of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. She was convicted and

sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act') to simple

imprisonment for four months with a further direction to pay

compensation Rs.1,68,242/- with a default clause of simple

imprisonment for two months. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, confirmed the conviction

recorded by the Trial court and modified the sentence to simple

imprisonment till the rising of court and fine Rs.1,68,242/- with a default

clause of simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the

aforesaid verdict of the Appellate court, the petitioner is here before this

Court with this revision petition.

2.​ Since the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no

instructions, notice was issued to the petitioner intimating the

adjournment of the case and also informing her that the case would be

decided in her absence, if there was no representation on the adjourned

posting date. The aforesaid notice was duly served to the petitioner.

Still, the petitioner did not care to appear before this Court or to make 2026:KER:29265

arrangements for advancing arguments. In the above circumstances, this

Court appointed Adv. Mr.Atul Paulose as Amicus Curiae to represent the

revision petitioner.

3.​ Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of

Kerala.

4.​ Before the Trial court, the complainant had adduced evidence

through the oral testimony of PW1, with the documents marked as

Exts.P1 to P7. The petitioner had tendered evidence as DW1 and one

document was marked as Ext D1. It is after analysing the aforesaid

evidence that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the

complainant has successfully established the commission of offence

under Section 138 of the NI Act. The evidence adduced in the above

regard was subjected to re-appraisal by the Appellate Court.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court also found that the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act has been brought out through the evidence

adduced in that case.

5.​ The allegation against the petitioner is about the dishonour

of a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,24,296/- executed and issued by her

towards balance payment of the cost of the jewellery items purchased 2026:KER:29265

from the complainant. Since the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured, the

complainant had issued statutory notice which the petitioner received on

11.12.2010. The criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner

since she did not care to make payment of the cheque amount within 15

days after the receipt of the statutory notice. All those aspects were

brought out in evidence before the Trial Court. The only challenge raised

by the petitioner was that Ext D1 bill pertaining to the purchase of the

jewellery items contained the name of one 'Noushad' which would give

the indication that Ext P1 cheque was given to the aforesaid Noushad as

a security by borrowing Rs.25,000/- from him. The defence put forward

in the above regard has been rightly rejected by the courts below upon a

prudent analysis of the evidence on record. There is absolutely no scope

for interference upon the concurrent findings of the courts below about

the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the

petitioner. The fine amount of Rs.1,68,242/- ordered by the Appellate

Court was inclusive of the interest on the principal amount, and legal

expenses as well. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the view that the aforesaid fine amount imposed by the

Appellate Court, as well as the default clause provided for non payment

of fine, are liable to be retained as such. However, the imprisonment till 2026:KER:29265

rising of the Court awarded by the Appellate Court has to be set aside,

since the purpose of imposing penalty for the offence involved in this

case, could be fulfilled by the imposition of fine as stated above.

6.​ In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as follows:

(i)​ The concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are hereby confirmed.

(ii)​ The sentence of fine of Rs.1,68,242/- (Rupees one lakh sixty eight thousand two hundred and forty two only) imposed by the Appellate Court, and the default clause of simple imprisonment for one month for non-payment of fine, are retained as such.

(iii)The fine amount, if realised, shall be given to the complainant.

(iv)The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court imposed by the Appellate Court stands set aside.

(v)​ The petitioner shall remit the fine amount before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the Trial Court shall take steps for realisation of the aforesaid fine amount.

2026:KER:29265

This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance

rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Mr. Atul Paulose in

addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.

The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order along with the case

records to the Trial Court for the enforcement of the revised sentence

imposed by this Court.

          ​       ​   ​    ​     ​     ​       ​    ​    (sd/-)

                                                   G. GIRISH, JUDGE


jsr/DST