ORDER : These three revisions are filed by the same person and the party respondents are also same and therefore, these three cases are connected and disposing of by this common order. 2. The revision petitioner in these cases is the accused in ST Nos.4491/2020, 4492/2020 and 4493/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. It was a prosecution initiated against the revision petitioner by one Thomas Abraham. Thomas Abraham is no more and his legal heir is impleaded as additional 3 rd respondent in these three cases. 3. The facts in these three cases as narrated in the trial court judgment are extracted hereunder :- “Facts in ST 4491/2020 2. The averments contained in the complaint, in short, are as follows :- The accused voluntarily executed and issued cheque, bearing No.013085 dated 16/09/2020 drawn on the Axix Bank Limited, Ranni Branch for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the complainant for discharging his debt. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through the Federal Bank, Kottathur – Kozhencherry Branch. It was dishonoured on 18/09/2020 with a memo stating that ‘Funds InsufÏcient’. On 25/09/2020 the complainant caused to issue legal notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonour of cheque and demanded the cheque amount within 15 days. On 26/09/2020 it was duly served to the accused. The accused sent a reply on 23/10/2020 admitting the issuance of the cheque. He did not make payment. Hence the above case has been instituted. Facts in ST 4492/20 3. The averments contained in the complaint, in short, are as follows :- The accused voluntarily executed and issued cheque, bearing No.013087 dated 16/09/2020 drawn on the Axix Bank Limited, Ranni Branch for Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only) to the complainant for discharging his debt. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through the Federal Bank, Kottathur – Kozhencherry Branch. It was dishonoured on 18/09/2020 with a memo stating that ‘Funds InsufÏcient’. On 25/09/2020 the complainant caused to issue legal notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonour of cheque and demanded the cheque amount within 15 days. On 26/09/2020 it was duly served to the accused. The accused sent a reply on 23/10/2020 admitting the issuance of the cheque. He did not make payment. Hence the above case has been instituted. Facts in ST 4493/20 4. On 26/09/2020 it was duly served to the accused. The accused sent a reply on 23/10/2020 admitting the issuance of the cheque. He did not make payment. Hence the above case has been instituted. Facts in ST 4493/20 4. The averments contained in the complaint, in short, are as follows :- The accused voluntarily executed and issued cheque, bearing No.013086 dated 16/09/2020 drawn on the Axix Bank Limited, Ranni Branch for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the complainant for discharging his debt. The complainant presented the cheque for collection through the Federal Bank, Kottathur – Kozhencherry Branch. It was dishonoured on 18/09/2020 with a memo stating that ‘Funds InsufÏcient’. On 25/09/2020 the complainant caused to issue legal notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonour of cheque and demanded the cheque amount within 15 days. On 26/09/2020 it was duly served to the accused. The accused sent a reply on 23/10/2020 admitting the issuance of the cheque. He did not make payment. Hence the above case has been instituted.” 4. Originally the above cases were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta by the Power of Attorney Holder of the deceased complainant. That court took cognizance of the offence and thereafter the cases were made over to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II, Pathanamthitta. A joint trial of these three cases were ordered and the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and the complainant himself was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P19 are the documents marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (Cr.P.C.). No defence evidence was adduced. After going through the evidence and the documents, the accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with 9% interest on the cheque amount from 16.09.2020 till realisation to PW2 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. in ST No.4491/2020. In default of payment of compensation, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In default of payment of compensation, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- with 9% interest on the cheque amount from 16.09.2020 till realisation to PW2 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. This was the sentence imposed in ST No.4492/2020. As far as ST No.4493/2020, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with 9% interest on the cheque amount from 16.09.2020 till realisation to PW2 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed three separate appeals before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The appeals were considered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Pathanamthitta. After going through the evidence and documents, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, these three criminal revision petitions are filed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Addl. 3 rd respondent in these cases. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a short point. He submitted that the accused was not able to cross-examine PW1 and PW2 in these cases. The counsel submitted that an opportunity may given to cross-examine the witnesses. The counsel appearing for the Addl. 3 rd respondent in these cases submitted that the original complainant who was examined as PW2 is no more and there is no purpose in remanding the case for cross-examining the complainant. The counsel also submitted that the trial in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a summery trial. In a summery trial, the cross-examination of a witness is not a right of the accused. It is also submitted by the counsel that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner has not availed the same. In a summery trial, the cross-examination of a witness is not a right of the accused. It is also submitted by the counsel that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner has not availed the same. The counsel also submitted that no such contention was raised before the trial court and even in the appeal memorandum, there is no contention that opportunity was denied to cross-examine PW1. Hence, it is submitted that the case may not be remanded. It is also submitted that the deceased complainant filed the complaint in the year 2020. Huge amount is due to the Addl. 3 rd respondent. The prayer for remand is a tactics of the accused to protract the matter, is the submission. 8. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the party respondents. It is an admitted fact that two witnesses were examined by the complainant before the trial court and they were not cross-examined. It is also an admitted fact that the original complainant who was examined as PW2 is no more. It is also an admitted fact that the complaint was filed by the deceased complainant through a power-of-attorney holder and the power-of- attorney holder was examined as PW1. As per his evidence, it is clear that he has got acquaintance with the facts of the case. It is true that there is latches on the part of the petitioner and several opportunities were given by the trial court to cross- examine the witnesses. But even then, it is an admitted fact that, the evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2 are unchallenged. It is a case in which the cheque amount involved in these cases is huge. The trial court imposed compensation to the tune of 1.75 cores with interest at the rate of 9%. The conviction and sentence are imposed based on the unchallenged evidence of PW1 and PW2. When the petitioner submitted before this Court that he was not able to cross-examine the witness and he may be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, this Court cannot reject the same stating that there is some latches on the part of the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that, in summery trial, the accused has no right for cross-examination. I cannot agree with the same. The counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that, in summery trial, the accused has no right for cross-examination. I cannot agree with the same. In every trial, if the accused intent to cross-examine a witness, the same is to be allowed. 9. Another contention raised by the respondent is that, this contention is not raised in the appeal memorandum before the appellate court. All contentions need not be mentioned in the appeal memorandum in a criminal appeal. Moreover, it is a question of law, whether the unchallenged evidence of the witnesses without cross-examination can be accepted to convict the accused in three separate cases in which the amount involved is huge. Even if such a ground is not seen mentioned in the appeal memorandum before the appellate court, that is not a reason to reject the prayer for cross-examination. The counsel for the party respondents also made available an application for adjournment filed by the accused on 09.03.2022. In that application it is stated that the accused is ready to settle the issue. The averments in an application for adjournment cannot be taken as an admission of the accused about the liability. Then the counsel for the party respondents submitted that there is no purpose in sending back the case to the trial court because the complainant is not available and he is no more. But admittedly, PW1 is the power-of-attorney holder of the complainant. He deposed before the trial court that he has got acquaintance with the facts of these cases; he was also not cross-examined. In such circumstances, I think, if the case is sent back, the accused can cross-examine PW1, the power-of-attorney holder of the complainant. 10. In the light of the above discussion, I think, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to cross- examine PW1 and adduce evidence, if any, on behalf of him. But I make it clear that the petitioner should co- operate with the trial and this Court can fix a time limit for completing the trial. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and these cases are remanded only for allowing the petitioner to cross- examine PW1 and to adduce evidence, if any. But I make it clear that the petitioner should co- operate with the trial and this Court can fix a time limit for completing the trial. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and these cases are remanded only for allowing the petitioner to cross- examine PW1 and to adduce evidence, if any. No denova trial is necessary and the accused can be allowed to cross-examine PW1 and if the accused intent to adduce any evidence, the same also should be given within a time limit. The complainant also can be given an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, if any. The petitioner shall not take any advantage of this remand and try to drag the matter. The learned Magistrate will try to dispose of the case within a period of 4 months. Therefore, these Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed in the following manner: 1. Crl. RP No.616/2024 is allowed. The judgment dated 12.05.2022 in ST No.4491/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and the judgment dated 19.10.2023 in Crl. Appeal No.33/2022 on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta are set aside and ST No.4491/2020 is restored to the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 2. Crl. RP No.615/2024 is allowed. The judgment dated 12.05.2022 in ST No.4493/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and the judgment dated 19.10.2023 in Crl. Appeal No. 34/2022 on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta are set aside and ST No.4493/2020 is restored to the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 3. Crl. RP No.634/2024 is allowed. The judgment dated 12.05.2022 in ST No.4492/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and the judgment dated 19.10.2023 in Crl. Appeal No.32/2022 on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta are set aside and ST No.4492/2020 is restored to the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 4. The petitioner and the Addl. 3 rd respondent will appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta on 28.07.2025. No further notice is necessary to the petitioner or the Addl. 3 rd respondent. 5. District and Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta are set aside and ST No.4492/2020 is restored to the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. 4. The petitioner and the Addl. 3 rd respondent will appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta on 28.07.2025. No further notice is necessary to the petitioner or the Addl. 3 rd respondent. 5. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta will dispose of ST Nos.4491/2020, 4492/2020 and 4493/2020, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties.