S. 120-B, I.P.C. Petitioner 1 has also been convicted under S. 384, I.P.C. and No. 2 under S. 384/114, I.P.C. The ground upon which this rule has been issued is that the trial was vitiated as the sanction contemplated by S. 196-A, Criminal P.C. had not been accorded by the Local Government to the prosecution of the petitioners under S. 120-B, I.P.C. Now the object of the conspiracy having been to commit an offence under S. 384, I.P.C., which is a non- cognizable offence the Court could not take cognizance of the said offence without the sanction of the Local Government or of the District Magistrate empowered in that behalf. In the explanation which the learned Magistrate has submitted in answer to the rule he has suggested that the convictions under Ss. 384 and 384/114, I.P.C. as against the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively may be maintained and that the sentence passed on them may be treated as having been passed under the said sections. Apart from anything else, this course, in my