Does S.254(2) Cr.P.C. oblige the Magistrate to accept every request to send a cheque to the handwriting expert, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act? This question incidentally 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.13,000/-. The complainant alleged that it was issued by the accused to him for the discharge of a liability arising from sale/purchase of banana bunches. Notice of demand, though received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW2 and the Bank Manager as PW.1 Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. In the course of cross examination, there was no specific suggestion that the signature in the cheque is not that of the accused. But at the stage of 313 examination, a contention was raised that the cheque was not signed by him. When the complainant was in the witness stand, the suggestion was that the transaction was not between him and the accused, but between the complainant and the younger brother of the accused. At the defence stage, petitioner appears to have made an application under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C. to send the cheque to the expert. Notwithstanding the absence of a specific suggestion when PW2 was in the witness stand that the signature in the cheque is not that of the accused, the learned Magistrate appears to have naively accepted the request of the petitioner to send the cheque to the expert. The expert, DW1 reported that he was not able to make any specific opinion about the authorship of the signature and the writings in the cheque. The expert was examined as DW1. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked.

3. 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 judgments.

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 submits that in view of the evidence of the expert, benefit of doubt must have been conceded to the petitioner. There is nothing to prove that the cheque was actually signed and issued by the accused to the complainant for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability, it is urged.

5. I find no merit in this contention. The evidence of PW2, the complainant is a formidable circumstance against the accused. The fact that the notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, was not replied to, is again a very crucial circumstances against the accused. The accused kept silent on receipt of that notice threatening criminal prosecution. He has not offered any explanation for such strange conduct of his. That conduct is inconsistent with that of an ordinarily prudent person, if he were, in the circumstances of the accused, as contended by him. The eloquent silence/inaction of the accused on getting Ext.P6 notice goes a long way to support the evidence of PW2 about the circumstances under which he came into possession of Ext.P1 cheque. It is also of crucial significance to note that the accused has no explanation to offer as to how a cheque leaf issued to him by his bank to operate his account found its way to the possession of PW.2. While dishonouring the cheque, the bank did not advance a reason that the signature in the cheque does not tally with the specimen signature. There was no cross examination of the bank manager/PW1 on this aspect. The inability of the expert to authentically opine that the signature and the writings in the cheque are that of the accused in these circumstances cannot, advance the case of the accused, nor entitle him to the benefit of any nonexistent doubt. The challenge raised against the verdict of guilty and conviction, must, in these circumsta