Summarize the following court judgment. minal Appeal No. 137 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 9	 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in section B. Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1966. Sobhag Mal Jain	 for the appellants. H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam	 J. The two appellants	 in this appeal	 by special leave	 challenge their conviction	 by the Additional Sessions Judge	 No. 1	 Jaipur City	 for offences under sections 120B	 420	 420 read with 511	 and 467 read with 471	 I.P.C.	 as confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan	 at Jodhpur. Bhanwar Singh has also been convicted	 for an offence under section 380	 I.P.C. Both of them have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine	 for these offences	 and the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. The two appellants	 along with two others	 who have since been acquitted	 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge	 for various offences	 as indicated below. There was a common charge of criminal conspiracy	 under section 120B	 IPC	 to do	 or cause to be done	 illegal acts	 viz.	 offences of theft	 cheating	 forgeries	 etc.	 against all the four accused. Under this head	 the allegation was that the four accused agreed	 among themselves	 to commit theft and pilferage	 of Indian and British postal orders and bank cheques	 belonging to different persons	 which were in transmission	 by post and that	 after such pilfering	 the names of the original payees and the names of the paying post offices were erased and forgery was committed by writing the names of fictitious persons	 or the names of some of the accused	 and of different post offices. The further allegation was that the accused agreed to use	 as genuine	 all such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques	 which the accused knew	 or had reasons to believe	 were forged documents. There was also an allegation that all the accused had also agreed to present	 such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques	 for encashment at the post offices and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur	 through the two appellants and Yasoda Devi	 4th accused	 pretending to be either the original payees or the substituted payees. It was further alleged that the accused had agreed to cheat	 or attempt to cheat	 the postal L2Sup. CI/68 3 530 authorities and banks	 at Ajmer and Jaipur	 by dishonestly inducing them to make payment to the appellants and Yasoda Devi	 in respect of the pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques. It Was also stated that the accused committed the various acts	 in pursuance of the agreement	 regarding the postal orders and cheques	 details of which were given under that charge. Appellant Bhanwar Singh was also further charged that	 in pursuance of the conspiracy	 during October 1956 and December 1957	 he committed theft of various postal orders and cheques	 belonging to various persons and that he also forged certain postal orders	 which were valuable securities	 by removing the names of the original payees and inserting his own name and that he thereby cheated the postal authorities at Jaipur	 by dishonestly inducing them to deliver certain amounts against such postal orders	 which were really payable to a third party	 and thereby he committed offences of theft	 forgery and cheating	 under sections 380	 467 and 420	 I.P.C. There were also certain further charges	 for offences punishable under section 471; and of an attempt to commit cheating in respect of a cheque	 punishable under section 420 read with section 51 1	 IPC. Similarly	 against Kishanlal	 the 2nd appellant	 there were additional charges	 framed under sections 467	 420	 420 read with 511 and 471	 I.P.C. Kapoorchand was also charged under sections 380 and 467 I.P.C.	 and Yasoda Devi	 under sections 467	 471	 420 and 419 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution	 in brief	 was as follows. Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand were constables in the C.I.D.	 Ajmer Zone	 during 1956 57. In the course of their duties of censoring postal mail	 these two constables	 after having opened the mail	 for the purpose of censoring	 pilfered certain Indian postal orders and British postal orders and cheques and	 after erasing the names of the original payees	 as also the names of the post offices or banks	 where payment was to be made	 inserted their own names or some fictitious names and got the postal orders or cheques encashed at different post officers and banks. According to the prosecution	 Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand had entered into a conspiracy	 with Kishanlal and Yashoda Devi	 whose services were utilised for getting the moneys from the Banks. The matter came to light when the payees did not receive the cheques or the postal orders intended for them and lodged complaints with the post offices and banks. On investigation	 the four accused were charged	 as detailed above. The accused denied the charges levelled against them. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of criminal conspiracy was established	 against all the four accused The first appellant was found to be the main accused and he was 531 convicted under sections 380	 467/471	 420/511 read with section 120B I.P.C. The second appellant and Yashoda Devi were convicted under sections 467	 471 and 420 read with section 120B IPC. Kapoorchand was however convicted only for offences under sections 380 and 467 read with 120 B	 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced all of them to various terms of imprisonment	 and fine	 for the different offences	 as stated already. All the four accused challenged their conviction for these offences and the sentence passed against them	 be before the High Court of Rajasthan. Two contentions were raised by the accused; (i) that the trial held by the Sessions Judge was illegal and void	 inasmuch as the prosecution had been conducted	 without obtaining the necessary sanction	 under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1 in respect of the charge under sections 467 and 471 read with section 120B IPC; (ii) that the evidence adduced by the prosecution	 did not establish the guilt of the accused. Both these contentions have been negatived by the High Court	 so far as the appellants herein are concerned. The High Court	 however	 acquitted Yashoda Devi	 holding that the prosecution evidence id not establish her guilt	 beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court also acquitted Kapoorchand holding that the trial against him was void	 because the necessary sanction had not been obtained	 under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On behalf of the appellants	 Mr. Jain	 learned counsel	 raised the same two contentions before us. Counsel urged that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non cognizable offences under sections 467/471 read with section 120B	 IPC.	 the trial was illegal and void	 inasmuch as the necessary sanction	 under section 196A of the Code had not been obtained. Learned counsel further urged that the mere fact that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheat ing	 under section 420 IPC	 which is cognizable and for which punishment by way of imprisonment extending to 7 years could be imposed	 and for which no sanction was necessary	 would not make the trial valid. Under such circumstances	 the joint trial for cognizable and non cognizable offences was illegal and void. Mr. Khanna	 learned counsel for the State	 met this conten tion	 on behalf of the appellant	 by pointing out that the main object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks and the post offices	 by obtaining money from them; the forgeries committed by the accused on the cheques and postal orders were only incidental to achieve the main object of the conspiracy	 viz.	 to commit the offence under section 420 IPC. Under those circumstances	 Mr. Khanna pointed out	 it was not necessary to obtain sanction under section 196A of the Code and therefore there was no illegality	. which would vitiate the trial	 held by the Sessions Judge. 532 We have already indicated the offences for which the appellants and the other two accused	 who have since been acquitted	 were tried. It is enough to note that there was a charge under section 120B	 read with section 467/471 and 420 IPC. The offences under section 467 and 471 are non cognizable	 but the offence under section 420 is a cognizable one for which the punishment could be imprisonment extending to 7 years. Therefore	 if the object of the conspiracy	 under section 120B	 was to commit a non cognizable offence	 under section 467 or 471 I.P.C.	 the obtaining of sanction	 from the authorities mentioned in sub section (2) of section 196A	 was absolutely necessary	 and the absence of such sanction would vitiate the trial	 for such offences. Similarly	 if the object of the conspiracy	 under section 120B	 was to commit a cognizable offence under section 420 IPC	 which is punishable with imprisonment for a term above 2 years	 no sanction is necessary	 under section 196A. The question is	 whether sanction was necessary in the case before us	 when there was a trial for offences under section 467/471 and 420 IPC	 read with section 120B. In the instant case	 it is admitted that no sanction was ob tained. In The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kandimalla Subbaiah(1) the question arose	 before this Court	 whether sanction under section 196A of the Code was necessary when there was a trial for offences under section 120B	 read with sections 466	 467 and 420	 IPC. It was argued	 on behalf of the State	 that since the object of the conspiracy was to cheat the Government i.e.	 to commit an offence under section 420 IPC	 and as the offences under sections 466 and 467 were only means to that end	 the trial was not vitiated simply because no sanction was obtained for prosecuting the accused	 for offences of criminal conspiracy to commit non cognizable offences	 under sections 466 and 467 IPC. But	 in that decision	 this Court did not express any opinion on this point	 as the matter was sent back to the trial Court	 for framing fresh charges and proceeding with the trial	 after observing that it was for the Government to consider whether it should accord sanction for prosecution of non cognizable offences	 assuming that such sanction was necessary. The question	 that was thus left open	 in that decision	 arises for consideration	 now	 in the instant case before us. On behalf of the appellant	 reliance has been placed on three decisions	 in support of the contention that under such circumstances	 the trial is illegal and void. Those decisions are: Subbaiah	 In re:(2)	 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court; Jadeda Meramanji vs State of Gujarat(3)	 of the Gujarat High Court; and Nibaran Chandra vs Emperor(4)	 of the Calcutta High Court. (1) (3) (2) I.L.R. (4) A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 533 The decision of the Calcutta High Court does not assist the appellant	 because the charge that was framed was of criminal conspiracy	 under section 120B read with section 384 IPC. The object of the conspiracy having been to commit an offence	 under section 384 IPC	 which is a non cognizable offence	 it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence	 without the necessary sanction	 under section 196A; and	 on this ground	 the High Court held that the trial was void. In the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts	 referred to above	 it has been held that in respect of a prosecution	 for criminal conspiracy	 under section 120B	 read with es. 466 and 467 IPC.	 under which sections the offences are non cognizable	 the consent	 contemplated under section 196 (A) (2) is a pre requisite to any Court taking cognizance of that offence; it has also been held that sanction is not necessary to prosecute a case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under section 420 IPC. The legal proposition	 stated as such	 is unexceptionable. But it is not clear from the discussion	 contained in the two judg ments	 as to what was the object of the conspiracy. It is also to be stated that the said two decisions had no occasion to consider the question whether sanction	 under section 196 (A) (2)	 Cr. P.C.	 is still necessary when a trial is held for offences under section 120B read with section 466	 467 and 420 IPC.	 and when the case of the prosecution is that the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating	 and non cognizable offences have been committed for the purpose of effecting the object of the conspiracy. We may also point out that our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Madan Lal vs State of Punjab (1). We have gone through that decision and it does not	 in our opinion	 assist the appellant. The view of the various High Courts	 to which we will refer presently	 and with which view we agree	 is that no sanction is necessary	 under section 196A(2) Cr. P.C.	 when the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating (420 IPC)	 but	 forgery of documents (467 IPC) and similar non cognizable offences are also committed	 as merely steps taken	 by one or other of the accused	 for the purpose of effecting the main object of the conspiracy. A trial	 under such circumstances	 for offences under section 120B	 read with section 467/471 and 420 IPC.	 without obtaining sanction	 is neither illegal	 nor void. It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object. Even if the object of the conspiracy	 viz.	 of cheating	 is (1) ; 534 sought to be attained by resort to non cognizable offences	 as in the case before us	 sanction under section 196A of the Code is not necessary. This principle emerges from the following decisions: Ramaohandra Rango vs Emperor(1); Durgadas Tulsiram vs State(2); Abdul Kadar vs State(3); Paresh Nath vs Emperor(4); Golam Rahman vs The King(6); Kannan	 In re(6); and Vadlamudi vs State of A.P. (7). The object of the conspiracy has to be determined	 not only by reference to the sections of the penal enactment	 referred to in the charge	 but on a reading of the charges themselves. On a perusal of the charges	 framed against the appellants	 we are satisfied that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices	 referred to in the charges	 which is an offence under section 420	 read with section 120B	 IPC	 for which no sanction is necessary. No doubt there are also charges of committing forgery Of valuable security and using such forged documents	 which are 	offences under sections 467 and 471 IPC	 and non cognizable. But a reading of the charges	 as a whole	 makes it clear that it is not the case of the prosecution that committing forgery of the Indian and British postal orders or the cheques	 or using such forged documents	 was the object of the conspiracy. The accused would not he satisfied by merely entering into a conspiracy to forge the postal orders or the cheques	 or even to use such forged documents. The forging of the documents and using such forged documents	 were only means adopted by the accused for realising the object	 of the conspiracy	 which was to cheat the postal and bank authorities	 at the places mentioned in the charge	 by dishonestly inducing them to part with money. Therefore the trial of these accused	 for offences under sections 120B read with section 467/ 471 and 420 IPC.	 and other allied offences	 cannot be held to be illegal	 on the ground that sanction under section 196A(2) of the Code	 had not been obtained. Before closing the discussion	 on this point	 it is necessary to refer to the reliance placed	 by the	 counsel for the appellants	 on the acquittal	 by the High Court	 of Kapoorchand	 on the ground that the trial was void	 because the necessary sanction had not been obtained	 under section 196A	 of the Code. It will be seen that the said accused also was tried for an offence under section 120B read with section 420 IPC.	 as also on certain other charges. As will be seen from the judgment of the High Court	 it has taken the view that the said accused has not been convicted	 by the trial Court	 for an offence	 under section 120B read with section 420 IPC.	 and hence the trial is vitiated	 for lack of sanction. (1)A.I.R. 1939 Bom.129. (2) A.I.R. 1955 Bom. (2)A.I.R. 1964 Rom.133. (4) A.I.R. 1947 Cal. (5)A.I.R. (6) (1949) 2 M.L.J. Short Notes (7)A.I.R. p. 52 (Crl. M.P. 2686/1949) 535 Mr. Khanna	 learned counsel for the respondent	 has pointed out that the said accused was also tried for the offence of cheating	 but he was convicted only for certain other offences; and	 in this connection	 he referred us to the finding of the trial Court that all the accused were guilty of the offence of cheating also. It is not necessary to pursuematter further	 because	 it Will be seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the said accused was also prosecuted for anoffence under section 120 B read with section 420 IPC. In view of what is stated above	 the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants	 has to be rejected. So far as the second contention is concerned	 that really relates to merits. Both the learned Sessions Judge	 as well as the High 	Court	 have very elaborately gone into the evidence regarding the appellants	 and have found them guilty of the offences	 for which they were punished. We do not see any error	 committed by the High Court	 or the Sessions Judge	 in the appreciation of the evidence	 in the case	 and there is no justification for any interference	 by this Court. The result is that the appeal fails	 and is dismissed. G.C. Appeal dismissed.

The appellants along with two others were charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy in pursuance of which postal orders and cheques in the course of transit by post were pilfered and after various alterations being made therein were encashed at post offices and banks. The charges inter alia were under sections 467/471 read with section 120 B and a. 420 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge convicted all the four accused but the High Court maintained the conviction only of the two appellants. In appeal before this Court the appellants urged that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non cognizable offences under sections 467/471 read with section 120 B I.P.C. the trial was illegal and void as the necessary sanction under section 196 A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been obtained. It was further urged that the mere fact that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheating	 under section 420 I.P.C. for which no sanction was required	 would not make the trial valid. Under these circumstances it was contended that the joint trial for cognizable and non cognizable offences was illegal and void. HELD : It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object. No sanction is necessary under section 196 A(2) Cr. P.C. when the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating (420 I.P.C.) but forgery of documents (467 I.P.C.) and similar non cognizable offences are also committed	 as merely steps taken	 by one or other of the a for the purpose of effecting the main object of the conspiracy. [533 F H] The object of the conspiracy has to be determined	 not only by reference to the sections of the penal enactment	 referred to in the charge but on a reading of the charges themselves. The charges against the appellants showed that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices	 referred to in the charges	 which is an offence under section 420 read with section 120 B I.P.C. for which no sanction is necessary. The forging of the documents and usuing such forged documents were only means adopted by the accused for realising the aforesaid object. Therefore the trial of the accused in the present case for offences under sections 120 B read with sections 467/471 and 420 I.P.C. and other allied offences	 cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that sanction under section 196 A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been obtained. [534 B E] State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kandimala Subbaiah	 Ramchandra Rango vs Emperor	 A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 129	 Durgadas Tulsiram vs State	 A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 82	 Abdul Kadar vs State	 A.I.R. 1964 Bom. 133	 Paresh Nath vs Emperor	 A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 32	 Golam Rahman 528 529 Notes p. 52 Vadlamudi vs State of A.P. A.I.R. 1961 A.P. 448	 referred to. Subbaiah	 In re : I.L.R. 	 Jadeda Meramanji vs State of Gujarat	 (1963)2 Cr. L.J. 713	 Nibaran Chandra vs Emperor	 A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 754 and Madan Lal vs State of Punjab	 ; 	 distinguished.