Bapna, J.—This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Pali. The accused Ramlal was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pali under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code but the Magistrate purported to act under sub-section (1A) of section 562 Cr.P.C, and let off the accused on an admonition. On revision by the State, the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate be set aside and the accused be given a sentence according to law. 2. The offence under section 363 I. P.C. is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine while sub-section (1A) of section 562 would be applicable where a person is convicted of theft in a building, dishonest misappropriation, cheating or any other offence under the Penal Code punishable with imprisonment of not more than two years in the circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate did not take the trouble to refer to the provisions to the Code before proceedings to let off the accused on admonition. 3. The case for the prosecution is that the accused lived in a Chali along with several others and persuaded Mst. Mangi daughter of Durgadas to accompany him to Kishangarh on promises of better living conditions, nice clothes and ornaments. The girl has been proved to be of thirteen years of age according to the statements of Durgadas P. W. 4 and Dr. Rameshchandra P. W. 6. Mst. Mangi P. W. 2 proves how the accused induced her to leave her fathers protection and go with the accused by promises of good food, good clothes and marrying her in a prosperous family. She states that the accused took her to Marwar Junction on foot and thereafter boarded the train for Kishangarh and kept at his house but as the other members of the family of the accused remonstrated with him and refused to keep the girl with them, the accused brought her back to Pali and left her near the railway station promising to see her later but as he did not appear thereafter, she returned to her father in the evening. P. W. 3 Mst. Shanti another girl aged about eleven years corroborates Mst. Mangi P. W. 2 in so far as the accused also tried to persuade her along with Mst. P. W. 3 Mst. Shanti another girl aged about eleven years corroborates Mst. Mangi P. W. 2 in so far as the accused also tried to persuade her along with Mst. Mangi to leave her fathers protection and go with the accused on promises of good food, clothing and marriage in a prosperous family. She, however, states that she did not go with the accused being afraid of her father. P.W. 4 Durgadas is the father of Mst. Mangi. He made a report at the police station Pali on 18th of March, 1950 at 9 P.M. after having failed to find the girl at his house on return from the Mill at 5 P.M. A second report was made by Durgadas when he came to know that it was the accused who had kidnapped his daughter. The accused in his statement admitted having taken the girl to Kishangarh but curiously enough alleged that it was the girl who had kidnapped him. He admitted that he brought the girl back as his brothers remonstrated with him for having brought the girl. On a charge being framed under section 363 I.P.C. the accused pleaded guilty and did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses nor produced any defence. There is no doubt that the offence under sec. 363 I. P.C. has been fully proved against the accused and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Committed a grave error in letting off the accused on an admonition contrary to the provision of law. Offences of this kind are very serious and the accused who was a neighbour has acted in a most reprehensible manner. I accept the reference and set aside the order directing release of the accused on an admonition. His conviction under sec. 363 I. P.C. is maintained and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.