JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of Ram Chander of an offence under section 366 of the Penal Code, 1860. It appears that a young woman under sixteen years of age, of the name of Gutri, ran away from her father-in-law's house. She was met by the accused, who is a Brahmin, and she spent a few nights in a lodging-house at Benares with the accused. From thence they removed to Mirzapur when the girl apparently became dissatisfied and made complaints which led to the arrest of the accused. The girl was examined at length and the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion first that she had left the guardianship of her husband and father-in-law of her own free will and not for the first time. Secondly, that she stayed with the accused quite voluntarily and that her staying and going with him was not the result of force exercised or deception practised. We think that for the purposes of the present appeal we ought to assume that the conclusion which the learned Judge arrived at on questions of fact are quite correct. The question then is, was an offence under section 366 committed? The section is as follows:— “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent ***”. The expression “kidnap” is defined by section 361 as follows: “Whoever takes or entices any minor *** out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor.” Section 362 thus defines the expression “abduct”, “Whoever by force compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place.” It is clear on the finding of fact of the court below that there was no “abduction” in the present case. Can it be said that the accused “took or enticed” the girl out of the keeping of her lawful guardian. 2. On the admitted facts the leaving and the removal out of the keeping of the lawful guardian was the act of the girl herself long before she met the accused. We think that it would be straining the plain meaning of the words of the section if we held that under the circumstances of the present case the offence of “kidnapping” had been committed. We think that it would be straining the plain meaning of the words of the section if we held that under the circumstances of the present case the offence of “kidnapping” had been committed. We need hardly point out that the case would be very different if the girl had been going on a visit or message or any such like occasion. We dismiss the appeal. The accused if in custody will be released. If he is on bail his bail bonds will be discharged.