JUDGMENT -The accused, who is in jail, is alleged to have kidnapped a twelve-year old girl Shobhavati Sitaram as well as attempted to rape her. He is acquitted of both these offences but he is convicted of the alternative charge framed against him under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. He is alleged to have indulged in immoral behaviour was the said Shobhavati between January 10 and January 14, 1971 at Chembur, Greater Bombay. 2., Girl Shobhavati was staying with her parents and brothers in the hutment area and because her mother fell ill, she had to do all the domestic work at that time. The accused was working in a lunch home near their hut and therefore they came to know each other. The incident took place on January 10, 1971 and it is alleged that when the girls mother was in hospital because she was ill and when her father was out, she left her house. The accused met her near the hotel and he asked her where she was going. Because she said she was going out, therefore be accompanied her. He then took her to Chembur. They both spent five nights on a footpath there. It is alleged that on the next night he indulged in immoral behaviour with her. He was threatening her and abusing her and telling her to go with him in the Maidan in the tall grass so that he could have sexual intercourse with her. He took her to the said Maidan but she did not allow him to have sexual intercourse. During the course of the investigation semen stains were found not only on the spot in between two legs of salwar worn by the girl but also on the chaddi worn by the accused. The accused denied having committed any offence, but admitted having taken her to Chembur. His defence is that she met him and told him that her parents were beating her; that she did not like to stay with them; that she told him that she would like to go with him and therefore he went along with her and took her to Chembur and stayed there. He then returned after four days and brought her father to the place. 3. He then returned after four days and brought her father to the place. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering all the evidence found that the prosecution have neither established the offence punishable under section 366, Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under section 376, Indian Penal Code against the accused. He, however, found that the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. He sentenced the accused to one years rigorous imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence therefore is challenged here. 4. We are not here concerned with all the evidence led by the prosecution; we are here concerned with only the evidence of the girl Shobhavati because the other witnesses speak of the offence of kidnapping and rape. Shobhavati says that the accused had accompanied her to the footpath in Chembur and was making overtures and asking her to have sexual intercourse with him. He was telling her to go to the Maidan nearby where there was tall grass so that he could have sexual intercourse with her there. He was also abusing her and threatening her. She, however, did not allow him the liberty. There is also the report of the Chemical Analyser to show that semen stains were found not only on the salwar worn by the girl but also on the chaddi of the accused. The semen stains were human and of the same group. The point that arises here for consideration is whether all these circumstances prove or do not prove that the accused had committed the offence under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. 5. Under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, whosoever seduces or indulges in immoral behaviour with a girl under the age of eighteen years, on conviction be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Mr. Hombalkar, the learned advocate for the appellant accused, invited my attention to Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra1 and contended that the word "seduced" means that there must be some positive act on the part of the accused. There, the supreme Court Was considering the word "seduced" in section 366, Indian Penal Code. The words used in section 366, Indian Penal Code are "seduced to illicit intercourse". There, the supreme Court Was considering the word "seduced" in section 366, Indian Penal Code. The words used in section 366, Indian Penal Code are "seduced to illicit intercourse". On the other hand, the words I1scd in section 57 of the Bombay Children Act are "whosoever seduces or indulges in immoral behaviour with a girl". The words "to illicit intercourse" are not added to the word "seduced" in section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. The construction of the word "seduced" by the Supreme Court in section 366, Indian Penal Code therefore will not be of any help to Mr. Hombalkar. The meaning of the word "seduce" in Oxford English Dictionary is as follows: "2 In wider sense: To lead (a person) astray in conduct or belief; to draw away from the right or intended course of action to or into a wrong one; to tempt or entice or beguile to do something wrong, foolish or unintended." This therefore appears to be the meaning of the word "seduces" in section 57 of the Bombay Children Act also. The mind of the Legislature is also clear if section 56 is seen. Under that section whoever having the actual charge of or control over a girl under the age of eighteen years causes or encourages the seduction (which shall include inducement to indulge in immoral behaviour) is to be punished. Evidently, therefore the word "seduction" even in the mind of the Legislature includes inducement to immoral behaviour. There is no question of the accused playing any positive act in that guise. It, therefore, appears to me that the word "seduces" in section 57 would mean to lead astray in conduct a girl or to draw away a girl from the right course of action. It would also include inducement to indulge in immoral behaviour. Did the accused seduce her or in other words indulge with her in immoral behaviour? The girl says that he threatened her and abused her. She also says that he was inducing her to sleep with him in the grass so that he could have sexual intercourse with her. Semen stains of the same group were also found not only on the salwar worn by the girl but also on the chaddi worn by the accused. All these circumstances in my view adequately conclude that the accused indulged in immoral behaviour with the girl. Semen stains of the same group were also found not only on the salwar worn by the girl but also on the chaddi worn by the accused. All these circumstances in my view adequately conclude that the accused indulged in immoral behaviour with the girl. He can also be said to have seduced the girl and therefore to have induced her to indulge in immoral behaviour. 6. The words "immoral behaviour are also defined in section 4 (f) of the Act as any act or conduct which is indecent or obscene. If the above mentioned conduct of the accused is not indecent or obscene what else could it be ? I, therefore, think that there is. satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the offence with which he is convicted. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.