Order.- These two petitions are for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in C.A. Nos.151 and 152 of 1953 on the file of this Court. The petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.527 of 1954 is the 2nd accused in the case and appellant in C.A. No.151 of 1953. The petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.528 of 1954 is accused 1 in the case and appellant in C.A.No.152 of 1953. They were charged and tried under section 120-B read with sections 294-A and 420, section 294-A and section 420, Indian Penal Code. They were convicted by the trial Court and given separate sentences for each of the offences. In appeal, I confirmed the conviction but, as regards the sentences, I confirmed only the sentence passed under section 120-B read with sections 294-A and 420, Indian Penal Code. As regards the sentences passed for the offences under sections 294-A and 420, Indian Penal Code, that is, on second and third charges, I set aside the sentences, for, in my opinion, those sentences were unnecessary. The points on which Mr. Sundararajan seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are these. Firstly, that the complaint laid before the Court for the offences under section 120-B read with section 294-A, Indian Penal Code, is not in accordance with the provisions of section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt sanction was obtained to prosecute the petitioners for the offence under section 294-A, Indian Penal Code, as required by the provisions of section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code (vide Exhibit P-63) but not for 120-B. The point that there is no proper complaint for the offence under section 120-B as required under section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, was neither raised in the trial Court nor before me in the appeal. The learned State Prosecutor, to whom notice was given, opposes the applications. He contends, relying on two decisions, one of the Bombay High Court and the other of the Calcutta High Court that in a case like this no complaint is required under section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned State Prosecutor, to whom notice was given, opposes the applications. He contends, relying on two decisions, one of the Bombay High Court and the other of the Calcutta High Court that in a case like this no complaint is required under section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code. In the charge-sheet filed in the present case, it is stated that the accused were parties to a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to cheat the members of the public by the sale of tickets for a lottery on the misrepresentation that it was sanctioned by the Government and that P.Ws.1 to 5 (in the charge-sheet) are to be judges, though they were not all consulted. According to the charge-sheet the main object of the conspirators was to commit the offence of cheating. The means adopted by them to commit cheating were by selling tickets for lottery. In such circumstances as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in Ramachandra Rango Sawkar v. Emperor1, no complaint is required under section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judges in that case held there is a recognisable difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted to realise the object. If they are separable, then even if the object is sought to be attained by resort to non-cognizable offences, sanction is not necessary. It does not matter if the object is erroneously mixed up with the statement of method of attaining it in the body of the complaint. This was followed in Paresh Nath Koyal v. Emperor2. In that case, the main object of the conspirator was to commit an offence of cheating and the offences of forgery of certain documents and their use as genuine were committed not for their own sake but as machinery by means of which the main object was to be achieved. It was held by the learned Judges that the main object of the criminal conspiracy being to commit a cognizable offence, sanction under section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, was not necessary. The word ‘sanction’ obviously means the complaint to be filed under section 196-A. As pointed out by the learned Judges in the two decisions, where the main object is to commit cheating, which is a cognizable offence, no complaint as required by section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is necessary. The word ‘sanction’ obviously means the complaint to be filed under section 196-A. As pointed out by the learned Judges in the two decisions, where the main object is to commit cheating, which is a cognizable offence, no complaint as required by section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is necessary. The main object of the accused in this case is to commit the offence of cheating for which no complaint is required by section 196-A, Criminal Procedure Code. Following the two decisions mentioned above, I hold that no complaint as required by section 196-A is necessary. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this case does not fall under first part of section 294-A, Indian Penal Code, but falls only under its’ second part. The first part of the section is as follows: “Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery (not being a State lottery or a lottery authorised by the. Provincial Government) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” The second part of the section runs as follows: “And whoever publishes any proposal to pay any sum, or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in any such lottery shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.” The letter by South Indian Jolly Investment Trust to the postmaster, Alwarpet, Madras (Exhibit P-47) shows that the place to which M.Os. and other articles are to be delivered is No.7, Pilliar Koil Street, Alwarpet. In fact several M.Os. were at the time of search, pending payment and they were all to this address. On the evidence, it is clear that No.7, Pilliar Koil Street, is the place kept by the petitioners as office for running a lottery. Relying on Public Prosecutor v. K.B. Kalkura1, Mr. Sundararajan contends that section 294-A, contemplates a physical drawing and the word ‘drawing’ should be given its natural meaning that is lucky numbers being drawn out of an urn, box or other receptacle. It is not disputed that in the present lottery winning tickets are to be drawn out of urn, box or other receptacle. Sundararajan contends that section 294-A, contemplates a physical drawing and the word ‘drawing’ should be given its natural meaning that is lucky numbers being drawn out of an urn, box or other receptacle. It is not disputed that in the present lottery winning tickets are to be drawn out of urn, box or other receptacle. It, therefore, amounts to drawing within the meaning of section 294-A and falls under the first part of the section. There is no substance in the contention that the first part of the section does not apply to this case. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The petitions are dismissed. Since the period of bail granted by the Supreme Court is over and as these petitions are dismissed, I do not think I can grant further bail. R.M. ------ Petitions dismissed.