JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Narendra Singh, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in 2003, a complaint was filed against him, and his father for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [the Act, for short]. He continued to attend the trial till 07.12.2004. However, in the year, 2004, he lost his father, and shifted to his Village. During this time with regard to a complaint made to the Registrar [Vigilance] of this Court, the record was summoned by the Registrar. Subsequently, the record was returned on 18.10.2004. The petitioner further claims that for all these years from 2004 to 2012, he was working in his Village; he had no information that the trial was continuing. It is only subsequently that the standing warrant of arrest has been issued against him by the trial court. Immediately, he rushed to the trial Court, and filed an application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. However, by order dated 20.02.2012, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the entire complaint is misplaced. For, the cheque, in dispute, was issued by his father. However, the Court has taken cognizance against both him and his father. Meanwhile, the father has expired. Secondly, since the petitioner had no information that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him, he failed to appear before the trial Court. The moment, he came to know about the same, he filed the application. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 5. The issue whether cognizance has been taken rightly or wrongly against the petitioner cannot be decided when the petitioner is challenging an order rejecting his application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. Obviously, the said issue is alien to the controversy before this Court. Therefore, the said contention is highly misplaced. 6. Considering the fact that the trial began in the year 2003, naturally the petitioner must have appointed a lawyer of his choice. For eight long years, the petitioner did not bother to inquire from his lawyer as to the date of the trial. Therefore, the said contention is highly misplaced. 6. Considering the fact that the trial began in the year 2003, naturally the petitioner must have appointed a lawyer of his choice. For eight long years, the petitioner did not bother to inquire from his lawyer as to the date of the trial. Admittedly, the record of the case was returned by this Court on 18.10.2004. Yet, the petitioner attended the trial only till 07.12.2004 i.e. for two more months. Even after the record was returned by this Court, from 2004 till 2012, the petitioner did not bother to attend the trial. Due to his absence, trial continued for eight long years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to show any cogent reason for not appearing before the trial Court for eight long years. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this petition: it is, hereby, dismissed. *******