of the complainant. Therefore, the accused would take the position that except the signature the other handwritten entries does not belong to him whereas the specific case of the complainant is that not only the signature but also the entries in the cheque were made by the accused. Therefore, the issue as to whether the handwritten entries in the cheque other than the signature is that of the accused or not is seriously a matter of issue in the lis between the parties. True, that the accused had not issued any reply notice to the statutory demand notice issued by the complainant and that by itself is not a ground for non suiting the petitioner so as to deprive the right of the accused to shape up his defence in accordance with his legitimate defence strategy in a appropriate manner as advised by his counsel. After institution of the petition, the petitioner in the first occasion has raised this issue during the cross-examination of PW-1 and he has raised this issue as stated hereinabove. In this view of the matter, the accused is certainly entitled to maintain his plea that the cheque should be send to the handwriting expert in order to ascertain whether or not the hand written entries in the cheque are that of the accused or not. Accordingly, the impugned order at Anx.A-2 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court and the trial court will ensure that
