Does the criminal court have the power to direct payment of interest on the amount of compensation directed to be paid under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.? This interesting question arises for consideration in this revision petition which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.25,000 and bears the date 1-11-2004. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Notice of demand succeeded in evoking only Ext.D-1 reply notice. No payment was made. The complainant examined him self as P.W.1 and proved Exts.P-1 to P-5. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence. He proved Exts.D-1 & D-2. The accused raised a plea that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability; but was issued only as security in a transaction between the wife of the accused and the complainant.

3. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. The petitioner fares the sentence of imprisonment till rising of court. There is a further direction under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.25,000 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-11-2004 - the date of the cheque.

4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of guilty and conviction. I am satisfied that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is an informed and fair one. I find the verdict of guilty and conviction to be absolutely justified and unexceptionable.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the sentence imposed is excessive. Secondly, it is contended that powers under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. do not justify a direction to recover interest on the principal amount of compensation. The counsel contends that the power of the court under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. is only to direct payment of a specific amount and there can be no direction for payment on any interest on such specific amount directed to be paid.

6. I find merit in the prayer for leniency. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammy 2002 (3) K.L.T 852). I am not satisfied that there are any compelling circumstances available in this case which would justify the imposition of any deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner. Leniency can be shown on the question of sentence. But at the same time the courts cannot ignore the plight of the respondent/complainant who has been compelled to fight three rounds of legal battle and to wait from 2004 for the redressal of his genuine grievance.

7. The interesting legal question that has been raised is whether a direction can be issued under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. to pay as compensation interest on the amount shown in the cheque. The courts below have directed payment of the principal amount due under the cheque i.e., Rs.25,000 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-11-2004 till the date of realisation. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such a direction is legally impermissible and unacceptable.

8. The question raised is interesting. The learned counsel were requested to research and make detailed submissions. I place on record my appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. V.N. Shankerjee, the young counsel who was requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae.

9. The first question raised is whether all amounts which can be directed to be paid as compensation out of the fine amount unde