JUDGMENT Lort-Williams, J. - In this case the complainant and the Appellant lived close together. It is alleged that the Appellant took or enticed away the complainant's wife from her mother's house with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The complainant tried to get his wife back from her mother's house, but failed to do so by reason of the obstruction of her mother and stepfather. Subsequently, he tried again and found the girl missing. The mother said that she could not say where the girl was. The Complainant heard that she had been sent to the Appellant's house and went there with a number of people, and they saw the girl moving from one hut to another. Subsequently, she went back to her husband's house and when she gave her evidence, she said that the Appellant had taken her to his house on the pretext that she was to work as his servant and that he outraged her modesty there. 2. The Sessions Judge was not prepared to accept this vague statement and he held that illicit intercourse was not proved. Yet, on the other hand, he seems to have come to the conclusion, without any evidence so far as I am able to find, that the Appellant's intention was clear enough and that it was to have illicit intercourse with the girl. The Judge seemed to think that the mother and the step-father wanted to get her away from her husband and give her over to the Appellant who is the Imam of a Mosque. Further, he seems to have come to the conclusion that there was evidence to show that the girl gave her post facto consent to what had happened. Then the Judge said that this would not absolve the Appellant. The girl was the wife of the complainant and the Appellant took her from the care of her mother. This however, so far as I understand the evidence, was with her mother's consent, and, therefore, it was not taking or enticing away within the meaning of sec. 498. 3. The girl is 22 years old and I am unable to understand how it can be assumed that the only possible inference to be drawn from the relationship of the Appellant and the Complainant's wife was that he intended to have illicit intercourse with her. 498. 3. The girl is 22 years old and I am unable to understand how it can be assumed that the only possible inference to be drawn from the relationship of the Appellant and the Complainant's wife was that he intended to have illicit intercourse with her. It is conceivable that she was willing to act as a servant in his house. 4. However, the main point which has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that there was no evidence of any criminal intention. In my opinion, there is no reliable evidence that the Petitioner ever took or enticed the girl away, and even if he did, there is absolutely nothing to show that he did so with the object of having illicit intercourse with her, especially when the learned Judge found as a fact that there was no such illicit intercourse. 5. In these circumstances, the convictions and sentences must be set aside and the accused acquitted. The Petitioner, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bond. Jack, J. I agree.