1. The only contention in this case is that the accused are not guilty under the 1st clause of Section 294 A, I.P.C. but only under the 2nd clause, as it is said there was no actual drawing of the lottery. The 1st clause of the section speaks of keeping an office for the ' purpose of drawing any lottery. ' I think the conditions for the application of that part of the section is complied with, when it is shown that the accused did keep an office where they carried on the necessary preliminary work for running a lottery and received the lottery moneys, and which they held out to the public as the place where the lottery would finally be drawn. Ex. U shows J: hat they did have such an office and they kept it for the purpose of carrying on all the business connected with the lottery and for drawing the lottery when the time arrived for it. I think the Magistrate was right in the view he took.
2. Sentences are not heavy considering the loss caused to the public by the action of the accused, even if they themselves did not benefit much by it.