ORDER : 1. The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 2601 of 2010 on the files of the trial court. 2. The revision petitioners were convicted by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the N.I. Act”). They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,82,000/- jointly. It was further directed that in default of payment of fine, the first petitioner should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. 3. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence, the complainant, who is the second respondent herein, filed appeal before the Sessions Court. As per judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 248 of 2015 dated 9.6.2016, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to a fine of twice the cheque amount with 9% interest per annum. The first petitioner was also awarded a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 12 months. 4. Aggrieved by the enhancement of sentence by the Sessions Court, this revision petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that no appeal is maintainable at the instance of the complainant seeking for enhancement of sentence awarded by the trial court in a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in the said circumstances, the modified sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot be sustained. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent, has argued that the appeal seeking for enhancement of sentence is maintainable and in the said circumstances, the enhanced sentence awarded by the Sessions Court is perfectly justified. 8. A learned Single Judge in Ponnappan vs. Balachandran, 2018 (1) KLT 165 , held that so far as inadequacy of compensation is concerned, in a complaint case, an appeal would lie in terms of proviso to Section 372 of the Code. 8. A learned Single Judge in Ponnappan vs. Balachandran, 2018 (1) KLT 165 , held that so far as inadequacy of compensation is concerned, in a complaint case, an appeal would lie in terms of proviso to Section 372 of the Code. The Division Bench of this Court in Omana Jose vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (2) KLT 504 , held that the complainant in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot challenge an order of acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his remedy is only to file an appeal to the High Court with special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench further observed in Omana Jose (supra) that the expression ‘victim’ requires an interpretation in the context of the provisions in Sections 372 and 378 to exclude the complainant in a complaint case, who is also the victim, from the purview of the definition of victim under Section 2 (wa) Cr.P.C. In view of the decision of this Court in Omana Jose (supra), there is no room for doubt that no appeal lies to the Sessions Court under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C seeking for enhancement of sentence passed by the trial court in a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since there is no provision for appeal, the only remedy available to the complainant to redress his grievance was to file a revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Court. For the said reason, the appeal filed by the complainant was not maintainable. Consequently, the enhanced sentence awarded by the appellate court also cannot be sustained. 9. It is also necessary in this case to consider as to whether or not the enhanced sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and correct. 10. Section 138 of the N.I. Act provides for a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge awarded a fine of twice the amount of the cheque with 9% interest per annum on the said amount. The maximum fine which can be awarded under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is twice the amount of the cheque. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge awarded a fine of twice the amount of the cheque with 9% interest per annum on the said amount. The maximum fine which can be awarded under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is twice the amount of the cheque. However, the learned Sessions Judge awarded a fine amounting to double the cheque amount plus 9% interest over and above the said amount. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct. 11. There is yet another illegality in the order passed by the appellate court, which is in the matter of awarding default sentence. Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code provides that the term for which the Court can direct the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. Section 138 of the N.I. Act is punishable with imprisonment for two years and a fine upto double the amount of the cheque. Since the maximum term of imprisonment awardable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is two years, the maximum default sentence which can be awarded by the court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is six months. However, in this case, the default sentence awarded was 12 months, which is not legal and correct. For the said reason also, the enhanced sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed and the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal No. 248 of 2015 stands set aside, restoring the sentence imposed by the trial court.