JUDGMENT : 1. Mt. Ganga Dei has been convicted of on offence under S. 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment together with fine and solitary confinement. She has appealed and in her petition of appeal she says that she is quite innocent and that she had nothing to do with the removal of the girl, Dilasia, from Cawnpore to Allahabad. I have gone into the evidence, and I am satisfied that a; complete case has, been made out against Mt. Ganga Dei and that she has been rightly convicted. I dismiss her appeal. 2. In the same case one Mirai was tried along with Mt. Ganga Dei and was convicted under S. 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. He too has appealed. The learned vakil, who has appeared on his behalf, has taken me through the evidence and has pointed out that so far as the prosecution story goes, the connexion, if the whole of that be accepted and believed, of Mirai with Dilasia is confined to the day of her abduction and the day following. On the evening of that day the prosecution say that Mirai was one of the two persons who took the girl to the house of Mahadeo and offered her there as an emigration coolie. Mahadeo refused to take her on the ground that she was too young. It is further contended that there is nothing from which conspiracy in abduction could rightly be inferred. I cannot agree with him. 3. The offence of abduction is a continuing offence, and the girl was being abducted not only when she was taken from the latrine at Cawnpore but also when she was being taken to Mahadeo's house. Beyond that so far as Mirai is concerned we need not go. Had the mere act of abduction been an offence, I should have been prepared on the evidence to find Mirai guilty of conspiracy in that offence. But Chap. 14, I.P.C. makes abduction an offence only when it is committed with certain intents. It is true that S. 366 is very wide. But it would be too far to say that the taking of the girl to the house of Mahadeo was the taking with a knowledge that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is true that S. 366 is very wide. But it would be too far to say that the taking of the girl to the house of Mahadeo was the taking with a knowledge that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Such a result may and it is to be feared does occur under such circumstances. But I cannot hold that it is a necessary result or even a probable result that a person taking a girl to the house of an emigration recruiter does the act with such knowledge. There is no other section under Chap. 14 to cover the case and I am not concerned with any other offence against Mirai. It is sufficient for me to say that I have to deal with the offence under S. 366. I find it is not proved that Mirai was guilty of that offence. I set aside the conviction and sentence and order his immediate release.