JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the petitioner clearly admits that the Court of ACJM had earlier ordered that the jeep be given to Ghasi Ram. A revision filed against that order has been dismissed. Thereafter, the order passed by the ACJM and Revisional Court was challenged before this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. The Misc. Petition has been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the order of grant of custody of jeep in favour of respondent-Ghasi Ram, has been maintained up to this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jeep was seized from the custody of the petitioner. He is a bona fide purchaser and no order could be passed in favour of the respondent Ghasi Ram for handing over of the jeep. 3. He relied upon Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan, Cr.LR (Raj.) 1988 page 294 , Bhopal Singh v. State, RLW 1999 (2) Raj. 799 and Hari Mohan Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Another, 1997 (1) WLC (Raj.) 152 . The proposition set out in these cases is that the jeep should be given to a person who is bona fide puchaser. There cannot be any denial of the proposition for handing over of the jeep to the bona fide purchaser. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser, but the documents show that he was not the bona fide purchaser of the jeep. He has not produced any original document of his purchase. He has got a photostat copy of a document, alleged to be an agreement of sale. Regarding this document, the Court of ACJM had already initiated proceedings against the petitioner. It has been prima facie held to be a forged document. In that view of the matter, the Revisional Court has held that it is not established that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser. In view thereof, the custody of the vehicle was not given to the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts obtaining on the file. The document on record, is only a photostat copy of an agreement to sale, which is not admissible in evidence as primary evidence. No effort has been made by the petitioner to seek permission of the Courts below to establish that he is entitled to produce the secondary evidence. The document on record, is only a photostat copy of an agreement to sale, which is not admissible in evidence as primary evidence. No effort has been made by the petitioner to seek permission of the Courts below to establish that he is entitled to produce the secondary evidence. Therefore, the document, which is a photostat copy, is not liable to be read in evidence. If that document goes out of consideration, then whole case of the petitioner falls to the ground. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the jeep in question. This Court has earlier maintained the order of the Revisional Court and the trial Court, by dismissing the petition of the petitioner, whereby the custody of the jeep was given to the respondent Ghasi Ram. In this background, no interference is called for in the present petition. 6. The criminal revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******