JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.57/2012, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.233/2012 - State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Acharya (arising out of FIR No.109/2007 of Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer). 2. The learned trial court vide order dated 27.08.2012 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 IPC and summoned the petitioner through arrest warrant. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there is no evidence available on record to take cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence, the learned trial court has illegally took cognizance against the petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the revisional court has also passed the order dated 10.12.2013 in mechanical manner and dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner illegally. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 6. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is apparent that the learned courts below have taken into consideration in detail the investigation conducted by the police and has found prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not given any reason to summon the accused through the arrest warrant. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttarachal & Ors. reported in 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttarachal & Ors. reported in 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 34 and in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 988 and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in above decisions that for summoning accused persons for their appearance before the Court, at the first instance, it is not necessary that in every case, accused persons should be summoned through arrest warrants. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection if the arrest warrant issued by the trial court be converted into bailable warrant. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Misc. Petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the order of summoning the petitioner for the offence aforementioned, the direction to summon the petitioner by warrant of arrest is hereby modified and now the petitioner shall be summoned through bailable warrant in sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner may appear before the trial court within four weeks and furnish bonds.Petition partly allowed. *******