Ramaswami, J.

1. It is necessary to state the material facts giving rise to this rule. On 12-8-1948 at about noon one Kara Dusadh found six appcts. slaughtering a bullock in an open field at a distance of about ten rasis from his house. He informed the S. I. of Police, who after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sec.295A, I. P. C. After taking cognizance, the Subdivisional Mag. transferred the case to another first class Mag. who has convicted the appcts. not under Sec.295-A but under Sec.298 I. P. C.

2. The main argument is that since the prosecution has not been sanctioned by the local Govt., the conviction of the appcts. is illegal. In my opinion, this argument is well founded & must prevail. The lower appellate Ct. has observed that there is no defect in cognizance since the appcts. have been ultimately convicted under Sec.298, I. P. C. upon the same complaint. But it is not permissible to look at; the ultimate result of the trial in order to examine whether the Mag. has taken legal cognizance of the case: see Ravanappa V/s. Reddi V/s. Emperor, A. I. R. (19) 1932 Mad. 233: (33 Cr. L. J. 36l) & Narain Singh V/s. Emperor,. A. I. R. (12) 1925 ALL. 129 : (26 Cr. L.