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 o