ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. All these revision petitions are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 19033/2011 and affirmation of the same in Crl. A. No. 1477/2014, C.C. No.21872/2011 and affirmation in Crl. A. No. 1478/2014, C.C. No. 21873/2011 and Crl. A. No. 1479/2014 respectively. Complaints had been filed separately for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.Nos. 19033/ 2011, 21872/2011 and 21873/2011. 2. Respondent - Narinder Malik in Crl. R.P. No.1273/2015, respondent - Smt. Neelam Malik in Crl.R.P.No. 1274/2015 and respondent - Mr. Naveen Malik in Crl. R.P. No. 1275/2015 are the members of the same family. Narinder Malik - the respondent in Crl. R.P. No. 1273/2015 is the husband of Smt. Neelam Malik - respondent in Crl. R.P. No. 1274/2015 and the father of the respondent in Crl. R.P. No. 1275/2015. 3. M/s. IDEB Buildcon Private Limited is a private limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act with Mr. H.S. Bedi as the Managing Director and Smt. Avneet Bedi wife of Sri. H.S. Bedi as the Director and Oan Ali Zahid the Authorised representative of the said Company. Three separate complaints had been filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 4. Sri. H.S. Bedi, the petitioner and Managing Director of the company had issued two cheques in favour of Naveen Malik for a total sum of Rs.4,39,48,736/-, two cheques in favour of Narendra Malik for Rs.2,28,59,862/- and two cheques in favour of Neelam Malik for Rs.1,15,03,804/- respectively. These cheques were inclusive of the principal amount and compensation as per the settlement agreed at between the parties. The cheques so mentioned above were presented for encashment; but bounced on the ground of bank accounts being blocked. Ultimately it was found out by the respondent-complainants that there was no sufficient balance in their bank accounts to honour the cheques. 5. Statutory legal notices were got issued prior to the filing of the complaint and in spite of receipt of the same, the petitioner-accused did not pay the amount. But a reply was given stating that they could not make payment because of their bank accounts being frozen. An undertaking had been given to the effect that they would make payment within three months and to consider those cheques as valid for re-presentation. But a reply was given stating that they could not make payment because of their bank accounts being frozen. An undertaking had been given to the effect that they would make payment within three months and to consider those cheques as valid for re-presentation. Ultimately three separate complaints came to be filed by Naveen Malik, Narender Malik and Neelam Malik and they were contested on various grounds. One Oan All Zahid, authorised signatory of the company was made as accused and he is also convicted by the trial court. All the cases ended in conviction and the operative portion of the judgments passed in C.C. Nos. 19033/11, 21872/11 and 21873/11 are as follows: Order In C.C.No. 19033/2011 Acting U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C the accused No.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Finance Director of the Accused No. 1 Company and Accused No. 5 being the authorised signatory of the documents Ex.D.1 to D.3 & Ex.P.39 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I. Act. The accused No. 2, 3 & 5 are vicariously liable to pay Rs.1,71,54,897/- with 18% interest p.a. In default of payment of said compensation amount, interest amount and fine amount, the accused No. 2,3 & 5 each, shall undergo simple imprisonment for One year. Out of the said amount, Rs.1,71,44,897/- with 18% interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation, as provided U/s 357 of Cr.P.O. ana Rs.10,000/-shall be remitted to the state as fine. Order In C.C. No 21872/2011 Acting U/s 255 (2) Cr.PC, the accused No.2 & 3 being the managing Director and Finance Director of the Accused No. 1 company and Accused No. 5 being the authorised signatory of the documents Ex.D.l to D.3 & Ex.P. 39 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused No.2, 3 & 5 are vicariously liable to pay Rs. 86,37,853/- with 18% interest p.a. In default of payment of said compensation amount, interest amount and fine amount, the accused No. 2,3 & 5 each, shall undergo simple imprisonment for One year. Out of the said amount, Rs.86,27,853/- with 18% interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation, as provided U/s 357 of Cr.P.C and Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted to the state as fine. Out of the said amount, Rs.86,27,853/- with 18% interest shall be paid to the complainant as compensation, as provided U/s 357 of Cr.P.C and Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted to the state as fine. Order In C.C. No 21873/2011 Acting U/s 255(2) Cr.PC, the accused No. 2 & 3 being the managing Director and Finance Director of the Accused No.1 company and Accused No. 5 being the authorised signatory of the documents Ex.D.1 to D. 3 & Ex.P.39 are convicted for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. The accused No. 2, 3 & 5 are vicariously liable to pay balance amount of Ex.P.1 & P.2 of Rs.3,29,71,551/- with 18% interest p.a. from the date of complaint. In default of payment of said compensation amount, interest amount and fine amount, the accused No. 2, 3 & 5 each, shall undergo simple imprisonment for One year. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,29,61,551/- with 18% interest shall be paid to the complainant us compensation, as provided U/s 357 of Cr.P.C. and Rs.10,000/-shall be remitted to the state as fine. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused chose to file separate appeals in terms of Section 374, Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Bengaluru, and they were numbered as Crl. Appeal Nos. 1477-1479/14 and they have been dismissed by modifying the judgment of the trial court. The modified judgment passed by the first appellate court in the said appeals is as follows: Order In Crl.A. No. 1477/2014 The appeal filed by the accused/appellant under section 374(3) of Cr.p.c. is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore in the Judgment in C.C. No. 19033/2011 dated 01.12 2014 is hereby modified as under. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs1.71,54,897/- in default the accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 shall undergo S.I. for one year. Out of the above said amount, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,71,44,897/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be deposited to the state as fine. Out of the above said amount, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,71,44,897/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be deposited to the state as fine. Send the copy of the Judgment along with records to the Lower Court forthwith Order In Crl.A. No. 1478/2014 The appeal filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore in the Judgment in C.C.21872/2011 dated 01.12.2014 is hereby modified as under. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.86,37,853/- in default the accused Nos 2, 3 and. 5 shall undergo S.I. for one year. Out of the above said amount, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.86,27,853/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be deposited to the State as fine. Send the copy of the Judgment along with records to the Lower Court forthwith. Order In Crl.A. No. 1479/2014 The appeal filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Addl. CMM, Bangalore in the Judgment in C.C.21873/2011 dated 01.12.2014 is hereby modified as under. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,29,71,551/-, in default the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 shall undergo S.I for one gear. Out of the above said amount, the complaint is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,29,61,551/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be deposited to the State as fine. Send the copy of the Judgment along with records to the Lower Court, forthwith. 7. These judgments are called in question by filing separate revision petitions in terms of Section 397, Cr P.C. The main ground raised in all these petitions is that no interest could have been awarded on the amount awarded by the trial court as modified by the first appellate court. Learned senior counsel, Mr. 7. These judgments are called in question by filing separate revision petitions in terms of Section 397, Cr P.C. The main ground raised in all these petitions is that no interest could have been awarded on the amount awarded by the trial court as modified by the first appellate court. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Ravi B. Naik representing the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of R. Vijayan v. Baby And Another, (2012) 1 SCC 260 ) to contend that no interest could have been awarded either on the fine amount or the compensation amount and it is contrary to the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further contended that Smt. Avneet Bedi was not looking after the day to day affairs of the petitioner company and that the 4th petitioner-Oan Ali Zahia was in no way concerned with the cheques issues by the director of the first petitioner company and therefore, convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is opposed to facts, law and probabilities. 8. Mr. Navkesh Batra, learned counsel representing the respondents-complainant in all the cases has fairly submitted that his client is not interested in getting H.S. Bedi or his wife MRs. Avneet Bedi or Oan Ali Zahid punished in any manner or to take coercive steps and he would be happy if the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as modified by the first appellate court is only restricted to Mr. H.S. Bedi and if the amounts are paid. He submits that his clients are in great financial difficulty because of serious terminal ailments with which they are suffering and they want to recover a reasonable amount. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v. Vijay D Salvi, [2015] 9 SCC 622. 9. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment of conviction and sentence insofar as it relates to MRs. Avaneet Bedi and Oan Ali Zahid is to be dismissed as not pressed and consequently they are to be acquitted of the offence alleged against them. 10. 9. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment of conviction and sentence insofar as it relates to MRs. Avaneet Bedi and Oan Ali Zahid is to be dismissed as not pressed and consequently they are to be acquitted of the offence alleged against them. 10. The short point in the present case is: Whether the first appellate court is justified in treating the amount of fine imposed by the trial court as fine and ordering the accused to pay the same compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.? 11. In all these cases, the amount awarded as compensation by the trial court and modified as fine by the first appellate court is cheque amount. As per the provisions of Section 138, N.I. Act, the court can convict the accused ana sentence to undergo imprisonment for two (2) years, or to pay fine amount which is equivalent to twice the amount of the cheque or both if it is tried as summons case. In the present case, no sentence of imprisonment is awarded. The trial court had not imposed any fine and the amount so mentioned in the operative portion of the judgment of the trial Court is compensation. In the appeal filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C., the learned sessions judge has modified the same and considered the said compensation amount as fine and has directed the accused to pay the same as compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 12. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh in which earlier decision rendered in the case of R. Vijayan v. Baby And Another, ([2012] 1 SCC 260) is relied upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is held as follows in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15: 14. The law laid down by this Court in R. Vijayan v. Baby was to the following effect (SCC pp.267-68, para-18) “18... It is held as follows in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15: 14. The law laid down by this Court in R. Vijayan v. Baby was to the following effect (SCC pp.267-68, para-18) “18... As the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act strongly lean towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation, the courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9% per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount of compensation. Direction to pay compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic, which would mean not only the payment of the cheque amount but interest thereon at a reasonable rate. Uniformly and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts, not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of Justice.” 15. We, therefore, award compensation to the extent of twice the cheque amount and simple interest thereon at 9% p.a. to the complainant. Accordingly, the respondent Vijay D. Salvi is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Considering the fact that the cheque amount is Rs. 74,200/-, we direct the respondent Vijay D. Salvi to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,48,400 (Rupees one lakh forty-eight thousand four hundred only) with simple interest thereon at 9% p.a., to the appellant complainant. In default of payment of the said compensation, the respondent will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 13. On a combined reading of the above, it is clear that the court has got power to impose fine which could be twice the amount covered under the cheque and the same could be awarded as compensation. It is made clear in paragraph 15 that there must be uniformity in awarding interest on the compensation amount and 9% p.a. would be reasonable. It is made clear in paragraph 15 that there must be uniformity in awarding interest on the compensation amount and 9% p.a. would be reasonable. In fact, as per the facts in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh, the Hon’ble apex court has ordered the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment for 5 months apart from paying Rs.1,48,400/- as compensation which is twice the amount of Rs.74,200/- (cheque amount), with interest at 9% p.a. thereon till payment is made. 14. One cannot forget the time taken in prosecuting the case in the trial court, first appellate court and in revisional court. If no interest is awarded on the compensation awarded by the trial court and the litigation goes on for several years, it would be as good as doing injustice to the drawer of the cheque, i.e. complainant. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble apex court in the decision rendered in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh. 15. In the present case, the first appellate court has not awarded compensation to the extent of twice the amount of the cheque. The amount of compensation awarded is equal to the amount in the cheque only. In this view of the matter, awarding interest at the rate of 18% pa. on the amount of compensation which is equivalent to the cheque cannot be considered as illegal or improper. If the first appellate court had awarded interest at 18% p.a. on twice the amount of the cheque, treating it as compensation, then it could have been scaled down to 9% p.a. Hence, awarding interest at 18% p.a. in the present case is very much in conformity with the law declared by the Hon’ble apex court in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh. 16. 16. If a case is instituted for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and tried as a summons case, Court can award fine to the extent of twice the cheque amount and out of the same substantial amount could be treated as compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In the alternative if the Court awards a lesser or nominal amount as fine, nothing inhibits the Court to award reasonable compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The purpose of awarding compensation in terms of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. is to avoid filing of a civil suit for recovery of money based on the dishonoured cheque. Normally a case instituted for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act should be disposed of within six (6) months from the date of institution of the case; but normally disposal of such cases are consuming lot of time in the trial Court, First Appellate Court and revisional Court. Hence, reasonable interest is to be awarded on such compensation amount to suitably compensate the victim i.e., bolder of cheque. What is laid down in the cases mentioned above is that till Section 138 of N.I. Act is suitably amended, awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. as the compensation amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment would be proper. In the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Vijayan v. Baby And Another reiterated subsequently in Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh, all the criminal Courts have to follow the law laid down in the above two cases relating to awarding interest on compensation. 17. In the present case the trial Court has not awarded interest on the fine, but on the compensation. In fact trial Court has not imposed any fine. Therefore, the 1st appellate Court has just fine-tuned the operative portion of the trial Court judgment by treating the compensation awarded as fine and then treating the same as compensation in terms of Section 357(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., less Rs.10,000/- to be treated as fine which should go to State. In fact trial Court has not imposed any fine. Therefore, the 1st appellate Court has just fine-tuned the operative portion of the trial Court judgment by treating the compensation awarded as fine and then treating the same as compensation in terms of Section 357(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., less Rs.10,000/- to be treated as fine which should go to State. In fact if a case is instituted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is tried summarily, amount of fine cannot exceed to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and sentence of imprisonment cannot extend one year in terms of Section 143 of N.I. Act which has stood amended w.e.f. 2003. 18. In this view of the matter no illegality or perversity is committed either by the trial Court or by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Consequently, revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 19. The fair submission made by Mr. Navxesh Batra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant is placed on record and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against MRs. Avneet Bedi and Oan Ali Zahid are to be set aside and they are to be acquitted of the offence alleged against them. 20. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER (I) Revision Petitions are allowed in part. (II) Smt Avneet Bedi and Oan Ali Zahid are acquitted of the offences of Section. 138 of NI Act, in all these 3 cases. (III) It is made clear that the 2nd appellant-H.S.Bedi representing the 1st appellant company shall pay the amount of compensation as determined by the first appellate court in all the cases, with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of judgment of the trial court till payment. (IV) If any amount is already received by the respondent-complainant, it shall be given due deduction while enforcing the judgment, by way of Fine Levy Warrant. (V) At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners-accused requests some reasonable time to pool the amount and pay the same. Hence, two months time is granted to the petitioner to pay the remaining amount, lest the complainants will be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the judicial officers through respective Principal District. Judges, for future reference. Petitions partly allowed.