Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 012. 2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.462 of 2003 in C.C.No.1978 of 2000 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. It is seen that the case was taken on file on the basis of the complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 r/w. Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner/accused. Subsequently, the revision petitioner herein has filed Crl.M.P.No. 462 of 2003 before the trial Court under Section 258 Cr.P.C for discharge. According to the revision petitioner / accused he was not the signatory of the alleged cheques that were dishonoured. Hence, there is no criminal liability, as against the revision petitioner, due to the issuance of the cheque bearing Nos. 546363 to 54365 dated 111. 1999, 112. 1999 and 15.01.2000 drawn on Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Coimbatore for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each. The trial Court dismissed the petition filed under section 258 Cr.P.C. as no merits. 3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner Radhakrishnan alias Rajan is a partner in the firm which issued the cheques, that were subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds. According to the revision petitioner, though he was a partner in the firm, the cheques were not issued by him. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Parthasarathy, appearing for the respondent would contend that after the dishonour of the cheques, the respondent herein issued a legal notice, wherein it was specifically averred that the revision petitioner Radhakrishnan alias Rajan, who was the partner of the firm Engineers and Fabricators India issued the cheques that were dishonoured. After receiving the legal notice, the revision petitioner sent a reply notice wherein it is averred that the respondent had not produced the accounts relating to the petitioner-firm, so as to settle the matter. No defence was raised by the petitioner saying that the dishonoured cheques were not issued by him. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner herein, after receiving the legal notice on account of the cheques issued by him were dishonoured, had not disputed the averments made by the respondent that the dishonoured cheques have been issued by him. No defence was raised by the petitioner saying that the dishonoured cheques were not issued by him. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner herein, after receiving the legal notice on account of the cheques issued by him were dishonoured, had not disputed the averments made by the respondent that the dishonoured cheques have been issued by him. As the revision petitioner had sent his reply admitting the liability, and asking only the copy of the accounts for settlement, it is not open to him to dispute the signature available in the dishonoured cheques. From the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below so as to warrant the interference of this Court. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Since, the case relates to the year 2000, the Trial Court is directed to dispose the same on merits, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.