JUDGMENT 1. - Identical question of law that cropped upon all the seven petitions is whether in a criminal case of trivial nature where warrant of arrest has already been issued against the accused, can he be exempted under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Arguments is respect of all the instant petitions were heard analogously and they are disposed of by a common order. 3. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City in seen cases took cognizance of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and issued summons against the accused petitioner on August 8,1997. The learned Magistrate on December 10, 1997 after perusing the report of process server, issued bailable warrants and thereafter on January 3, 1998 the accused petitioner was ordered to be summoned through on-bailable warrants. 4. On Feb. 24, 1998 the counsel for the accused appellant appeared before the Court of CJM and moved applications under section 205 Criminal Procedure Code seeking exemption of the accused from personal appearance. Learned CJM dismissed the applications vide orders dated March 27, 1998. 5. Against these orders that the accused petitioner has resorted present action for filing the miscellaneous petitions. 6. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the impugned orders. 7. Admittedly the accused petitioner has not called in question the orders dated December 10, 1997 and January 3, 1995. 8. Principally I agree with the contention of Mr. R.N. Khandewal learned counsel for the accused that in trivial criminal cases, personal appearance of the accused should be exempted as a rule but I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe the view that provisions of Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code are applicable where warrant of arrest is issued against the accused. Where warrant has been issued against the accused, Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code does not apply. My opinion finds support from Poosi v. Man Das, 1951 RLW 27 , Kewal Krishna v. State of Patiala, AIR 1954 Pepsu 36 , Lekhram Agarwalla and others v. Pannalal Agarwalla, AIR 1951 Assam 129 , State v. Peer Mohd. Mawbook Yalgami and others, AIR 1963 Jammu and Kashmir 41. It is not necessary for me to discuss the case law cited by learned counsel. 9. Mawbook Yalgami and others, AIR 1963 Jammu and Kashmir 41. It is not necessary for me to discuss the case law cited by learned counsel. 9. As orders in respect of issuance of warrants have not been assailed by the accused petitioner, i have no option but to convert non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in each case, under Section 72 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned CJM 11. All the seven miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Two months time is granted to the accused petitioner to appear before the learned CJM Jaipur City and to submit his bail bonds. The accused therefore shall be granted exemption under section 317 Criminal Procedure Code and his appearance shall not be insisted upon during the trial. The warrants of arrest issued against the accused petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of two months. *******