JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.73/2014, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.338/2014. 2. The trial court vide order dated 01.09.2014 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.38/2015 Smt. Kala Devi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 120-B, 166 and 167 IPC and summoned the petitioners through arrest warrant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not want to challenge the order passed by the trial court of taking cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence, however, prayed that the trial court has erred in summoning the petitioners through arrest warrants instead of bailable warrants. It is further contended that the trial court has not given any reasons to summon the accused-petitioners through arrest warrants instead of bailable warrants at the first instance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder 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 and in the event of non service of the bailable warrant or where the accused persons are evading the service of bailable warrants, then only those persons should be summoned through arrest warrant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that arrest warrants issued by the trial court may kindly be converted into bailable warrants. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and argued that the trial court is very well in its jurisdiction to summon the petitioners through arrest warrants. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that arrest warrants issued by the trial court may kindly be converted into bailable warrants. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and argued that the trial court is very well in its jurisdiction to summon the petitioners through arrest warrants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. 8. From the perusal of the order passed by the trial court it is clear that the trial court has not specified the reasons, for summoning the petitioners through arrest warrants at the first instance. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for converting the arrest warrants into bailable warrants is justified. 10. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the trial court to the extent of taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence aforementioned, the direction to summon the petitioners by warrant of arrest is hereby modified and the warrant of arrest issued by the trial court is converted into bailable warrants. It is made clear that the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners has not been interfered with.Petition partly allowed. *******