JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - The Appellant has been convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 388 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence is said to have been committed in connection with a girl named Ranibala. This girl fell in love with a young man named Nanda Lal Das and ran away with him. It is said, and we see no reason to doubt, that they stayed together as husband and wife for a few days in the house of the Appellant. They then left the house of the Appellant and stayed at the house of another woman named Lakshibala who was put on her trial at the same time and given the benefit of the doubt by the jury. In our opinion this conviction cannot be supported. Firstly, because there was the most glaring misjoinder of charges; and secondly, because there was no evidence which would justify a conviction. 2. The offence, if any committed by the Appellant, and the offence if any committed by Lakshibala are absolutely separate offences, and there is no provision of the law under which they could be tried together. The result is that the jury were allowed to hear all sorts of evidence which was quite irrelevant so far as the Appellant was concerned. 3. Before this conviction can be supported, the prosecution must give evidence of some kind to establish that the Appellant knew that the girl had been kidnapped, that is to say, they must show that she knew that the girl was under sixteen, and that she knew that the girl had been taken out of the custody of her lawful guardian by her lover. There is absolutely no evidence upon which such a conclusion could be based. It is not enough for the prosecution to show that the accused might have suspected or might have reason to believe that the person in the circumstances was kidnapped. 4. Then again there was no evidence to show that the Appellant ever concealed the girl. The learned Judge practically told the jury this, and on that view he should have directed them to bring in a verdict of not guilty. We accordingly allow this appeal. The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the Appellant if in custody will be set at liberty immediately. Hartley, J. I agree.