JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, J. - In the present appeal, it is not necessary to go into the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as the defence has accepted the fact that accused No. 1 had removed the prosecutrix Nanda from the custody of her parents and was brought to Bombay. Even as per the findings recorded by the trial Judge, the taking by the accused was not by force. Nanda had willingly accompanied accused No. 1. The evidence P.W. 1 Damodhar Deodhar, the Head Master of the school where Nanda was admitted as a student, and the school leaving certificate shows that the date of birth of Nnada was 2nd of January, 1970. The said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of the birth extract (Ext. 27). This evidence, therefore, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Nanda was below the age of 16 years on the date of the offence. As far as the role played by accused No. 2 is concerned, she was no where on the scene when accused No. 1 had met Nanda and had started taking her to Bombay. The act of kidnapping was complete when accused No. 1 took charge of Nanda and was proceeding to Bombay. Accused No. 2 appears to have met them on the way and accompanied them. This is the only role attributed to accused No. 2. Merely because accused No. 2 did not prevent accused No. 1 from taking Nanda to Bombay will not be sufficient to cast criminal liability on accused No. 2. Another role which is attributed to accused No. 2 is that she promised to prepare ornaments for Nanda. This act also would not be sufficient to arrive at a finding that she had shared the common intention of accused No. 1 to kidnap Nanda. In view of this position, accused No. 2 is entitled to an order of acquittal. 2. As far as accused No. 1 is concerned, it would appear that he would be liable to be convicted merely on the defence which has been taken by him. He has conceded that he has taken Nanda from her village and brought her to Bombay. According to him, Nanda had come of her own accord. Unfortunately for accused No. 1, Nanda is found to be below the age of 16 years. He has conceded that he has taken Nanda from her village and brought her to Bombay. According to him, Nanda had come of her own accord. Unfortunately for accused No. 1, Nanda is found to be below the age of 16 years. Hence, the consent of Nanda is of no consequence and will not absolve him from the criminal liability. 3. The trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. That is an apparent error. It is nobody's case that Nanda was kidnapped with a view that she may be force or seduced to illicit intercourse with some other person. The object of taking Nanda was to facilitate her marriage with accused No. 1. The offence, therefore, would fall under section 266 of the Indian Panel Code. The conviction of accused No. 1 is, therefore, altered from section 366A to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On the question of sentence it is to be noted that accused No. 1, at the relevant time, was aged only 19 years. He has brought Nanda from her village to Bombay. Nanda was in the company of the accused only for a day. They were apprehended on the very next day. During her overnight stay with the accused, accused No. 1 has not taken any advantage. Nanda had spent the night in the company of accused No. 2. Hence, accused No. 1 has not made any advances and has not sexually abused Nanda. This is clear from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Laxman Mandurke and the medical certificate (Ext. 23). The evidence clearly certifies that there was no injury on the body or on the private part or around the private part of Nanda. There were no signs of sexual intercourse. There is no previous conviction against the accused. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in my judgment, this is a fit case where the provisions of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code should be made applicable. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed upon accused No. 2 is quashed and set aside and she is acquitted. The conviction of accused No. 1 under section 366A of the Indian Panel Code is set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed upon accused No. 2 is quashed and set aside and she is acquitted. The conviction of accused No. 1 under section 366A of the Indian Panel Code is set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. Accused No. 1, however, is convicted of the offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead of sentencing accused No. 1 to imprisonment, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct of his executing a bond with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of two years, in case of breach of the terms of the bond for keeping peace and good behaviour. Appeal allowed partly.