Judgment G.L. Gupta, J.-This revision is directed against the order D/-23-1-96 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore whereby he framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. against petitioner Amritlal. .2. Mr. Kumbhat contended that the basis of the charge is the carbon copy of the cover note D/-14-2-92 and as the carbon copy is not primary evidence, charges could not be framed. Pointing out that the prosecution has not obtained permission to lead secondary evidence, he submitted, this document could not be used for framing charges. He placed reliance on the following cases :- .(i) State of Rajasthan vs. Jeet Mal 1986(2)All India Cr LR 469 .(ii) Jai Prakash vs. State 1998 (2) RCC 223 .(iii) Roshan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (1) RLW 465 : 1997 AIHC 2594 (Raj) .(iv) Bhera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan 1995(2) RCD 169 .(v) Han Singh vs. State of Rajasthan D.B.C. Appeal No. 81/91 decided on 4-9-96 .(vi) Smt. Mohini Bai vs. Kisbanchand 1975 WLN (UC) 98 .(vii) Rajeshwari Singh vs. State of U.P. 1987 AAC 223 .(viii) Gobinda Prasad vs. State AIR 1962 Cal 174 : 1962 (1) CriLJ 316. 3. On the other hand Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order. 4. I have considered the above arguments. The first point to be considered is whether carbon copy of a document can be considered for framing a charge. In the case of Prithi Chand vs. State of H.P. AIR 1989 SC 702 : 1989 CriLJ 841 it has been held by the Apex Court at Para 4 that a carbon copy made by one uniform process is primary evidence within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court the case of Mohini Bai (supra) does not help the petitioner. 5. Coming to the second contention that the permission to lead secondary evidence has not been obtained by the prosecution, it may be stated that the case has not come at the stage where such a permission could be sought, if required. At the stage of charge, there was no occasion for the prosecution to make an application to lead secondary evidence. 6. At the stage of charge, there was no occasion for the prosecution to make an application to lead secondary evidence. 6. Apart from that, if we go through the allegations against the petitioner, it cannot be said that charges could not be framed on the basis of the cover note produced in the case. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner made an application before the District Transport Officer on 15-7-92 for obtaining token for the Bus No. RJ-4P-0014. He put in form MTD prescribed under Rule 16 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1951 stating therein that insurance of the vehicle was valid up to 21-2-93. Along with the form, the petitioner submitted cover note No. 422219 purported to have been issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of the insurance of the Bus No. RJ-4P-0014 for the period 14-2-92 to 21-2-93. Believing the cover note to be genuine and entries in the MTD form to be correct, the D. T. 0. issued token No. 87/464 to the petitioner. After sometime the Transport Department while examining the documents of the other vehicles of the petitioner suspected some foul and, therefore, an enquiry was made from the Oriental Insurance Co., Jalore regarding the cover note No. 422219. The Insurance Co. intimated that this cover note was issued on 14-2-92 and the insurance period was 14-2-92 to 23-2-92 only and the sitting capacity of the vehicle was 50 + 2 (52). The D. T. 1.0. noticed that in the cover note filed by the petitioner the passenger capacity was recorded as 48 + 2 i.e. 50 and the term of insurance was 14-2-92 to 23-2-93. He, therefore, lodged first information report at police station, Jalore where a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. was registered. 7. It is obvious that the cover note which was filed by the petitioner in order to get token from the Transport Department was found to be a forged document. From where the petitioner obtained the cover note filed by him is the fact which is in the special knowledge of the petitioner. In these circumstances, on the ground that the original has not been filed by the prosecution, the charges cannot be quashed. 8. It has been stated in the revision petition that the police had submitted F.I.R. but the learned Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner. In these circumstances, on the ground that the original has not been filed by the prosecution, the charges cannot be quashed. 8. It has been stated in the revision petition that the police had submitted F.I.R. but the learned Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner. This is obvious incorrect statement in the revision petition. The record of the trial Court shows that the police had filed challan against the petitioner on which cognizance has been taken. 9. Theauthorities relied on by Mr. Kumbhat are not required to be discussed in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court that the carbon copy is a primary evidence, if prepared in the same process. Some, of the authorities are not relevant to the decision of this revision petition. 10. There is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed.