ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this petition, a challenge is made to the orders passed by the trial court so as the appellate court. 2. The petitioner maintained a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act of 1881”). The court convicted the accused and sentenced him. The compensation of Rs. 70,000/- against total cheque amount of Rs. 42,750/- was given. On an appeal, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- while maintaining the conviction but modified the order of sentence by awarding punishment to the non-petitioner till rising of the court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that amount of compensation should have been calculated by charging interest @18% per annum as given under Section 117 of the Act of 1881. If the component of interest on the amount of cheque is calculated, it would be greater than twice the amount. Accordingly, whatever compensation has been given, it is without determining as per Section 117 of the Act of 1881. In view of above, the compensation of cheque amount should be determined after taking component of interest @18% p.a. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. A complaint under Section 138 is to be dealt with as per Chapter XVII of the Act of 1881. Not only punishment but compensation have been provided under the said chapter itself. The maximum compensation can be double the amount and not beyond that. Learned counsel for petitioner has made reference of Section 117 of the Act of 1881 for determination of compensation. It is no doubt that certain criterias need to be taken for determination of compensation. In the instant case, it has already been taken on a revision petition preferred by the petitioner. As against the cheque amount of Rs. 42,750/-, the total compensation given to the petitioner is of Rs. 80,000/-. In view of above, I do not find that calculation of the compensation has not properly been made. The interest cannot be allowed on the compensation awarded by the court in absence of any provision under Chapter XVII of the Act of 1881. I do not find it to be a case where compensation has not been properly calculated. Finding no merit in the criminal misc. petition, it is dismissed.