ORDER K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J. 1. The petitioners are merchants doing business in different parts of Malappuram District. They are members of an association -- "The Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Malappuram District Unit. The members of the association have formed a trust under the name and style "Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi Trust, Malappuram. The petitioners are the office bearers of the trust. The trust has conceived some business promotion programmes. One such is "Customers' Bhagyadhara Scheme, 1998" launched in the middle of November, 1998. As per that scheme, free coupons will be supplied to the customers who purchase articles of different kinds above a specified amount from the merchants who are members of the scheme. Lots will be drawn at the end of the period of the scheme and prizes will be given to the lucky winners. Annexure I brochure issued shows that the proposal is to distribute prizes worth Rs. 25 lakhs after drawing lots in the middle of April, 1999. It is also stated that the merchants who participate in the scheme must make a contribution on the basis of their business turn over. It is made clear that the supply of coupons will be free, no amount will be levied for the coupons. Thus, from the scheme, it is fairly clear that the proposal is for the merchants to contribute a share of their profits to the trust and give it away as prizes to the few selected by drawing lots. The customer will not pay anything more for the goods purchased from the shops for getting the coupon though it may be an incentive to buy more, or above the limit fixed for getting the free coupons. The trust, of which the petitioners are the office bearers, have given publicity for the scheme through posters, newspaper advertisement etc. 2. The second respondent. Sub Inspector of Police. Malappuram has registered a case against the petitioners as Crime No. 407/98 of Malappuram Police Station alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under S.4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. The First Information Report is registered on the basis of a report from the Sub Inspector about the scheme and the reports and advertisements in the newspapers about it. The First Information Report is registered on the basis of a report from the Sub Inspector about the scheme and the reports and advertisements in the newspapers about it. The petitioners have approached this court praying for quashing the FIR itself stating that the scheme does not violate any provision of law and the registration of the case and attempt to ban the scheme lacks in bona fides. The petitioners have also a case that elsewhere also the merchant community is conducting similar schemes and registration of the case against the scheme conducted in Malappuram District alone is politically motivated, 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the Additional Director General of Prosecutions on behalf of the respondent/State. The learned Public Prosecutor has also filed a statement. 4. It is submitted for the respondents that the accused persons have offered prizes numbering 999 valued at Rs. 25 lakhs. The prize is determined by lots. Publicity is given through newspaper advertisements. It is also stated that though the case is registered only under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act, the question whether it will offend the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and S.294A IPC. is also under investigation and there is no justification for quashing the complaint itself. 5. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions has brought to my notice a century old decision in Taylor v. Smetten (1883 (11) QB 207) where it was held that giving a coupon entitled to a prize along with tea packets constituted a lottery. But, we have come a long way since then. We live in an age where we not only expect prize coupons in tea packets, but even gold lockets in toilet soaps. Such schemes are far too many. The question for consideration is whether the scheme formulated by the petitioners offend the provisions in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act or the Lotteries Regulation Act or the provisions in the IPC. justifying the registration of a case against them. S.3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act bans the conduct of prize chits and money circulation scheme. The respondent has no case that the petitioners are conducting any money circulation scheme. justifying the registration of a case against them. S.3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act bans the conduct of prize chits and money circulation scheme. The respondent has no case that the petitioners are conducting any money circulation scheme. "Prize chit" by its definition in the Act includes any transaction or arrangement by whatever name called under which a person collects, whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump sum or in installments by way of contributions or subscriptions or by sale of units, certificates or other instruments or in any other manner or as membership fees or admission fees or service charges to or in respect of any savings, mutual benefit, thrift or any other scheme or arrangement by whatever name called, and utilises the monies so collected or any part thereof or the income accruing from investment or other use of such monies for all or any of the purposes like giving or awarding periodical prizes or gifts or refunding to the subscribers or the contribution on the termination of the scheme. 6. In this case, as no amount is collected from the consumers to whom coupons are supplied, the conduct of the scheme cannot amount to conduct of a prize chit scheme prohibited by the Act. As noted above, it is submitted by the Additional Director General of Prosecutions on instructions from the second respondent that actually the petitioners are collecting Re. 1/- per coupon from the merchants who are members of the scheme. But that does not amount to collection of any amount from the consumers who will ultimately be getting the prizes. It is to be noted that the scheme envisages a prize scheme for the merchants who participate in the scheme. But the scheme itself does not envisage collecting Re.1/- per coupon from the participant members. The scheme only envisages contribution by the merchants in proportion to their business turnover. When the merchants distribute the prize coupons to the customers according to the volume of their purchase the coupons taken by them from the trust will also be in proportion to their turnover. The scheme only envisages contribution by the merchants in proportion to their business turnover. When the merchants distribute the prize coupons to the customers according to the volume of their purchase the coupons taken by them from the trust will also be in proportion to their turnover. But, from the scheme, it is seen that the proposal is to draw lots with all the participant merchants and it is not based on the coupons taken by them so that if is not possible to say that the merchants have made a contribution or subscription for taking part in the lots to be drawn. Thus, the scheme does not offend the provisions in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act. 7. Even as per the counter statement, in order to constitute a lottery within the meaning of the Lotteries Regulation Act, the scheme must be for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons who participate in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets. Since no tickets are sold or purchased, the scheme does not constitute a 'lottery'. Thus, neither the provisions in the Lotteries Regulation Act nor the provisions in S.294 A of the I.P.C. are attracted. As noticed above, the prize distribution scheme conducted by the petitioners does not offend the provisions of any law and so, there was no justification for registering the case or conducting any investigation in the matter. It is submitted for the petitioners that they are put to a lot of harassment and discriminatory treatment. It is a fit case in which the powers under S.482 Cr.P.C. must be invoked to quash the complaint itself. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The complaint and all further proceedings in Crime No. 407/98 of Malappuram Police Station are hereby quashed.