Judgment.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kelar in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1965 convicting the appellant Rudalph Gregory for an offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The charge against the appellant is that on the night of 20th July, 1964, between 9-40 p.m. and 1 a.m. he kidnapped Miss Gene Royle aged 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her father V.M. Royle of Champion Reefs, K.G.F. in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. There was another charge against the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he committed rape on Miss Gene Royle on 2nd April, 1964, near Oragaum Dairy, within the limits of Champion Reefs Police Station, K.G.F. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of this charge and the State has not preferred anyappeal. Hence, I am not concerned with the said charge in the present appeal. The facts which are either admitted or satisfactorily established and do not admit of any controversy briefly stated are as follows: Vivian Mose Royle was working as a Banksman in the Champion. Reefs Mines, K.G.F. and was living at door No. 149, Top Lines, Champion Reefs, K.G.F. along with his two daughters, namely, Oriana, Gene Royle and a son James, aged about 11 years. Miss Gene Royle was born on 11th December, 1949. The mother of the girl, namely, Mrs. Doria Royle was a nurse in a Hospital attached to the K.G.F. Mines and was living with her husband at that relevant point of time. The appellant Radalph Gregory, was living with his parents in a house opposite to that of Mr. V.M. Royle. The children of Mr. V.M. Royle used to spend much of their time in the house of the appellant during the absence of their parents. The appellant and Miss Gene Royle had become good friends during this period. The appellant and Miss Gene Royle used to carry on conversation with each other from their respective houses wen in the presence of Mr. V.M. Royle. On 2nd April, 1964, Mrs. The appellant and Miss Gene Royle had become good friends during this period. The appellant and Miss Gene Royle used to carry on conversation with each other from their respective houses wen in the presence of Mr. V.M. Royle. On 2nd April, 1964, Mrs. Royle, who came home from the Hospital, found the appellant and her daughter Miss Gene Royle engaged in conversation in the back yard of the house of the appellant. She rebuked Miss Gene Royle saying that she would report the matter to Mr. V.M. Royle and took her to her house. On the night of 2nd April, 1964, Miss Gene Royle was found missing from her house. Mrs. Royle suspected that the appellant must have a hand in her disappearance and had probably taken her away. Mr. and Mrs. Royle made enquiries with the parents of the appellant and did not get any useful information. They instituted a search but to no effect. They lodged a complaint in he Police Station at Champion Reefs stating that their daughter Miss Gene Royle was missing and that she may be traced. The Officer-in-charge of the Police Station searched for the girl, but he could not find her. It is stated that the appellant and Miss Gene Royle sat talking till about 10 p.m. in Oorgaum Dairy and went to the house of Edgar Vincent Gregory (P.W. 16) situated in S.A.T.A. Block in Champion Reefs at K.G.F. and stayed there for some time. On the morning of 3rd April, 1964 information to the effect that Miss Gene Royle and the appellant were in the house of P.W. 16 Edgar Vincent Gregory was known. The parents of the girl took the girl to their custody. They made an application to the Police Officer not to proceed with any investigation; as the girl had been traced and recovered. After reaching their house, the parents of Miss Gene Royle requested the parents of the appellant to send away the appellant to some distant place, so that the girl and the boy may not continue to engage themselves in such activities. Eventually on 4th April, 1964, the appellant was sent away to Salem by his parents as the maternal uncle of’ the appellant was running a workshop. The boy was employed therein. The appellant came back to K.G.F. on 15th July, 1964, and was staying with his parents for some days. Eventually on 4th April, 1964, the appellant was sent away to Salem by his parents as the maternal uncle of’ the appellant was running a workshop. The boy was employed therein. The appellant came back to K.G.F. on 15th July, 1964, and was staying with his parents for some days. On the night of 20th July, 1964, as Mr. Royle had gone to attend to night duty, Oriana, Miss Gene Royle and James were the only three inmates of the house. Mr. Royle had locked the front door of the house from outside before he left for, the mines. At about 9-30 p.m. Miss Gene Royle opened the bolt of the back door of her house and went out of the house with the two suit cases in which she had packed all her belongings. The appellant was waiting for her on the road and both of them went to “Hotel Gold Fields” at K.G.F. and spent the night in the hotel along with P.W. 17 Frank Row, a friend of the Appellant. On the morning of 21st July, 1964, the appellant and Miss Gene Royle went to Robertsonpet Bus Stand and boarded the bus N.M.S. Noor Express bound for Bangalore. Frand Rowe, who had accompanied these two persons stayed away at the bus stand itself. The appellant and Miss Gene Royle alighted from the bus near Lingarajapuram hear Bangalore and went to the house of one Mrs. Myrtle Davidson where they stayed till the next day evening. Thereafter the appellant and the girl went to the Cantonment Railway Station and spent that night on the platform itself. On the morning of 23rd July, 1964, the appellant and Miss Gene Royle went to Richards Park and stayed there till the evening. In the evening, they went back to the Railway Station at about dusk time and picked up their suit cases for going back to the house of Mrs. Myrtle Davidson. While they were so going two Constables and Mrs. Royle who had come to Lingarajapuram in search of them, apprehended the appellant and the girl and took them to Champion Reefs Police Station. In the meanwhile Mr. Royle had lodged a complaint as per Exhibit P-15. On the basis of the said complaint the Police took up investigation. Myrtle Davidson. While they were so going two Constables and Mrs. Royle who had come to Lingarajapuram in search of them, apprehended the appellant and the girl and took them to Champion Reefs Police Station. In the meanwhile Mr. Royle had lodged a complaint as per Exhibit P-15. On the basis of the said complaint the Police took up investigation. The appellant was arrested and after completing the investigation the Police placed a charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Special First Class Magistrate, K.G.F. The learned Magistrate committed the appellant to take his trial in the Court of Sessions for the said two offences. The learned Sessions Judge, who received the committal order and the connected papers, perused them and framed charges for offences punishable under sections 376 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. As already stated, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the charge, punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted, and sentenced him as stated above. He acquitted him of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The only point of controversy is whether the version of the prosecution that the appellant kidnapped Miss Gene Royle from the lawful guardianship of her father Mr. Royleon the night of 20th July, 1964, is true or the version of the appellant that the girl forced herself on him and she abandoned the guardianship of her father and came with him and that he simply took her from place to place at her desire, is true. Taking or enticing a minor girl out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. The mere fact that the appellant and Miss Gene Royle went away together or found in the company of one another in Lingarajapuram in the house of Mrs. Myrtle Davidson or in the Railway Station after leaving K.G.F. on the night of 20th July, 1964, is by itself insufficient to find the appellant guilty of the offence. It must be established by the prosecution that the appellant was a person who by allurement or persuasion induced a minor girl to abandon her parents and run away with him. Myrtle Davidson or in the Railway Station after leaving K.G.F. on the night of 20th July, 1964, is by itself insufficient to find the appellant guilty of the offence. It must be established by the prosecution that the appellant was a person who by allurement or persuasion induced a minor girl to abandon her parents and run away with him. The expression "taken.....out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor" in section 361, Indian Penal Code, has been interpreted by the Courts and the point that emerges from these cases are: (i) ‘taking’ referred to in section 361, Indian Penal Code, need not necessarily be physical removal by an accused person from the guardianship. (ii) The person, who inspires or aids the decision of the minor girl to abandon her home, as much takes her out of the keeping of her guardian as one who removes or allures her out of such guardianship. (iii) A person who does not influence the will of the minor girl, is Under no legal obligation to restore her to her guardian when the girl forces herself upon him, but his act in preventing the penitent girl to go back to her guardian subsequently constitutes ‘taking’ her out, out of the keeping of her guardian. (iv) If on the other hand the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes that it is the girl herself who left the house of her guardian and went to the accused person and induced him to accompany her and in consequence, she does not return to her guardian there being no conduct on the part of the man such as would amount to taking no offence is committed under section 361, Indian Penal Code. This principle was first enunciated in Reg v. Christian Glifir1, In that case Baron Bramwell stated the law as follows in the course of the charge to the jury: "I am of opinion that if a young woman leaves her father’s house without any persuasion, inducement or blandishment held out to her by a man so that she has got fairly away from home, and then goes to him, although it may be his moral duty to return her to her parents’ custody, yet his not doing so is no infringement of this Act or Parliament (24 and 25 Vict. S. 100, S. 58) for the Act does not say he shall restore her, but only that he shall not take her away.” Again in Rex v. James Jarvis1, Jelf, J., stated the law to the jury thus: ”Although there must be a taking, yet it is quite clear that any actua physical taking away of the girl is not necessary to render the prisoner liable to conviction; it is sufficient if he persuaded her to leave her home or go away with him by persuasion or blandishments. The question for you is whether the active part in the going away together was the act of the prisoner or the girl; unless it was that the prisoner, he is entitled to your verdict. And even if you do not believe that he did what he was morally bound to do-namely tell her to return home - that factis not by itself sufficient to warrant a conviction; for if she was determined to leave tier home and showed prisoner that that was her determination and insisted on leaving with him - or even if she was so forward as to write and suggest to the prisoner that he should go away with her and he yielded to her suggestion, taking no active part in the matter, you must acquit him. If however prisoner’s conduct was such as to persuade the girl, by blandishments or otherwise to leave her home either then or some further time, he ought to be found guilty of the offence of abduction.’ The law as enunciated above was approved by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Varadarajan v. State of Madras2. Their Lordships observed in the course of their judgment as follows: “It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between ‘taking’ and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know in full what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father’s protection knowing and having capacity to know in full what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.” Their Lordships further observed in the course of the same judgment as under: “It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father’s protection no active part was played by the accused he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our opinion, if evidence to establish one of those things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian’s house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian’s house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfilment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tantamount to ‘taking’.” I will now proceed to examine the evidence on record in the light of the principles enunciated above. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of P.W. 13 Mrs. Deris Royle and P.W. 14 Mr. V.M. Royle indicating that the appellant had made approaches to their daughter Miss Gene Royle at any time prior to the date of the incident or on the date of the incident. They do not say that the appellant’s conduct was such as to persuade their daughter by blandishment or otherwise to leave her home at any time. V.M. Royle indicating that the appellant had made approaches to their daughter Miss Gene Royle at any time prior to the date of the incident or on the date of the incident. They do not say that the appellant’s conduct was such as to persuade their daughter by blandishment or otherwise to leave her home at any time. The evidence on the other hand suggests that P.W. 13 Mrs. Royle was not living with the other members of the family in her house and had run away with one Bosem and was living with him in a room near the hospital. P.W. 5 Mrs. Thalis has stated in her evidence as follows: "Since about one year Mr. and Mrs. Royle are living separately on account of quarrel between them. Mrs. Royle, i.e., the mother of Gene Royle was friendly with a boy and on that account there was a quarrel between her and her husband and since then they are living separately. The boy with whom Mrs. Royle was friendly is by name Bosem." This act on the part of P.W. 13 Mrs. Deris Royle was very much hated by P.W. 18 Miss Gene Royle, as is clear from her letter, dated 26th March, 1964, addressed to the appellant (Exhibit D-9) wherein she writes thus: "Honey my mum said not to think of you to forget you she thinks its easy, darling as she forgot my dad and ran at the back of that fool, she thinks its so easy, for me to do the same." The ‘fool’ referred to is Bosem as admitted by P.W. 18 Miss Gene Royle in the course of her cross-examination. The evidence discloses that P.W. 18 Mrs. Doris Royle was casually visiting their house to look up her children and was not taking care of them. In these circumstances she cannot be expected to know anything about any approach made by the appellant or inducement or promise held out by the appellant, to P.W. 18. At any rate, the evidence is silent in this regard. On the other hand the girl was making approaches to the appellant often is clear from Exhibit D-15 a letter written by her to the appellant in the month of June, 1964. In the said letter she states as follows; "Lover you dont’s know what a lot of trouble I am in because I am writing to you. On the other hand the girl was making approaches to the appellant often is clear from Exhibit D-15 a letter written by her to the appellant in the month of June, 1964. In the said letter she states as follows; "Lover you dont’s know what a lot of trouble I am in because I am writing to you. Sweetheart even my dad knows and I told him if he only stops me from writing he will be sorry for it afterwards." It is suggested to P.W. 14 Mr. V.M. Royle that he encouraged his daughter to go away with the appellant and marry him and live comfortably at Salem but denied it. But the indications are that he encouraged his daughter to go out of the house on the night of the incident. Miss Oriana, the elder sister of Gene Royle appears to have assisted the love affair of her sister Gene Royle with the appellant. She knew that her sister Gene Royle was carrying on correspondence with the appellant while he was staying at Salem with his uncle. In Exhibit D-11, dated 6th May, 1964, a letter addressed by Gene Royle to the appellant to his address at Salem in the post-manuscript she has written as follows: "Rudy Oriana wants to write to you so I left the next page for her.” Exhibit D-11 (a) is a portion of the letter written by Oriana and it reads thus: "Rudy, please forgive me and forget what happened. I will never do it again. ‘I swear.’ Rudy, you don’t know how I feel when I see Jesu crying and not eating she is turning so thin and weak. Rudy how do you like the place? I hope you are enjoying yourself as far as we are still stuck in dry old K.G.F. Rudy, I close this letter with love and God bless. Yours................ Sister-in-law Rudy Oriana." The above letter makes it abundantly clear that Oriana was encouraging her sister Gene Royle to marry the appellant and to go and live with him at Salem comfortably. Miss Gene Royle had no doubt stated in her evidence that on 20th July, 1964, at about 10 a.m. while she was going to the hospital to meet her mother the appellant met her and told her that he was drawing a salary of Rs. Miss Gene Royle had no doubt stated in her evidence that on 20th July, 1964, at about 10 a.m. while she was going to the hospital to meet her mother the appellant met her and told her that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 274 at Salem and asked her to accompany him to Salem assuring her that he would marry her. She has further stated that the appellant told her that he would be coming to her house at 10 p.m. and throw a stone on her house and that thereupon she should come out and go with him. It is in accordance with this persuasion or inducement or promise held out by the appellant, according to her, she came out of her house on the night of 20th July, 1964, with the two suit cases in which she had kept all her belongings and followed the appellant to Gold Field Hotel and spent the night there. If this version of Gene Royle is true, the appellant has no doubt induced her to abandon the protection of her guardian and to go away with him holding out false promises. But this version of the girl is proved to be false. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 21 Doraiswamy, the Sub-Inspector of Police that she had not made any statement to the effect that the accused met her at 10 a.m. and asked her to accompany him; that the accused told her that he was getting a salary of Rs. 274 and that he would marry and that after marriage everything Would be alright. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 12 Gene Royle is clearly an after-thought. That it is so, is clear from the fact that she had not made any such statement when she was examined before the Munsiff-Magistrate at K.G.F. immediately after she was taken back to K.G.F. and produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Judge has noticed the fact that P.W. 18 Gene Royle had not made any such statement in the Committal Court and it is for the first time that she is making a statement in the trial Court. Therefore, no value can be attached to the statement made in the trial Court to the above effect. The learned trial Judge has noticed the fact that P.W. 18 Gene Royle had not made any such statement in the Committal Court and it is for the first time that she is making a statement in the trial Court. Therefore, no value can be attached to the statement made in the trial Court to the above effect. Except the above statement made for the first time in the trial Court, there is nothing in the course of her evidence indicating that the appellant held out any promise and thereby induced her to leave her house. On the other hand, the fact that she had kept two suit cases ready after packing all her things in them and came out of the house by opening the bolt of the back door; and that she locked the door and threw the key in the compound, before she accompanied the appellant speaks eloquently of the fact that she had made up her mind to abandon her parents to go away with the appellant with a view to marry him. Admittedly the appellant and Gene Royle lived in the house of P.W. 6 Myrtle Davidson at Lingarajapuram on 21st July, 1964. It is in evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Myrtle Davidson advised them to get back to K.G.F. and not to go to Salem. If really P.W. 18 Gene Royle had been induced by the appellant to leave her parental house on the assurance or promise held out by the appellant this was an opportunity for her to disclose all to P.W. 6 Mrs. Myrtle Davidson that she had been persuaded by the appellant by blandishment or otherwise to leave her home on 20th July, 1964, or at any time prior to that date. She did not say so before P.W. 6 Myrtle Davidson. The above circumstances clearly indicate that the present version of P.W. 18 Miss Gene Royle that she left her parental house at the instance and on the persuasion of the appellant is absolutely false. P.W. 18 Miss Gene Royle has admitted during the course of her cross-examination that she wrote the letters marked as Exhibits D-3 to D-18 to the appellant. Exhibit D-3 to D-10 were written to the appellant when he was residing; with his parents at K. G. F. Exhibits D-11 to D-18 were written to his address at Salem. P.W. 18 Miss Gene Royle has admitted during the course of her cross-examination that she wrote the letters marked as Exhibits D-3 to D-18 to the appellant. Exhibit D-3 to D-10 were written to the appellant when he was residing; with his parents at K. G. F. Exhibits D-11 to D-18 were written to his address at Salem. A reading of these letters makes it abudantly clear that P.W. 18 Gene Royle was prepared to abondon her parental home and to run away and join the appellant at any cost. The following extracts from some of the letters (These letters contain a number of grammatical and other mistakes as could be expected of from a girl studying in the 7th standard.) clearly establish this fact. In Exhibit D-3 dated 17th February, 1964, she writes as follows: "............Sweet heart I hope you won’t leave K.G.F. and go away because I will be blue without you darling. I need you and no one else.’ In Exhibit D-4 dated 28th February, 1964 she writes as under: "..........Baby as I write this letter tears roll down my face because I can’t think of you leaving me and going away darling after you go I will never go out of my house and there will never be a day that I won’t cry to think of my sweetheart. Darling you don’t have to worry because I will never be friendly with another boy because Ilove you and only you honey." In the post script she writes " Darling I need you. Baby don’t leave me. Sweetheart I love you with all my heart.” In Exhibit D-5 dated 8th March, 1964, among other things in the post script she writes. "Baby don’t leave me I will be blue if you do so excuse my writing." In Exhibit D-6 dated 13th March, 1964, she writes: "Lover why did you go away from that bridge as soon as you saw me darling. I will always love you and you only. Sweetheart I swear if you leave me I will put an end to myself and could never be friendly with any one after what happened day before yesterday. Rudy darling please stop saying that I’m always interested in some one else. Honey I am only interested in you and no one else.‘‘‘ In the post script she writes: "Sweetheart don’t leave me. Rudy darling please stop saying that I’m always interested in some one else. Honey I am only interested in you and no one else.‘‘‘ In the post script she writes: "Sweetheart don’t leave me. Darling I love you with all my heart, Honey I need you.‘‘ In Exhibit D-7 dated 18th March, 1964, she writes: "Sweetheart I am coming with you wherever you go because I love you and want to go with you............Rudy I love you and it will always be you who I love, baby I will come with you because I don’t want to stay without you........ I will, Iwill do anything for the love of you ‘I swear’." In Exhibit D-8 dated 26th March, 1964, she writes: "Sweetheart I am writing this letter to tell you that I am leaving my home." In Exhibit D-9 dated 28th March, 1964, she writes: "...........Rudy darling no one like me at home but I don’t care as long as you love me, even my brother and sister, honey I have noticed every movement of theirs it bring tears to my eyes and it hurts me." In the post script she writes: "Baby I won’t leave you. Sweetheart I need you." In Exhibit D-10 dated 1st April, 1964 she writes: "Sweetheart why are you telling me you are leaving on such and such a date and never go, darling you said we will leave yesterday and you did not come and last night you said you are leaving after the 10th, baby is it you like to see my suffer or you don’t want to come if so please tell me. Baby well I close with all my love and kisses to my precious darling Rudy.” The other letters are also in the same strain. In Exhibit D-14 dated 24th May, 1964, she writes: "Sweetheart have you got a job or are you still trying for one. Darling I am praying to God for you to get the job and even for you to come down soon because I am longing to see you again." In Exhibit D-16 dated 16th June, 1964, she writes among other things as follows: " Honey I am pregnant. You know I have not had any......from the 5 months of Jany and I am afraid to tell my dad and mum. You know I have not had any......from the 5 months of Jany and I am afraid to tell my dad and mum. Darling so please, don’t leave me for I love you so much no one I love as much as I love you you mean so much to me. Lover have you got a job? Are you alright? Darling I am praying hard for you to get a job and to live happy. Sweetheart when will you be coming down because I want to see you darling try and make it this week as I will have a nice chance to meet you as my dad is afternoon shift and moreover we have no servant to be in our way.‘‘ In Exhibit D-17 dated 26th June, 1964, she writes: “Lover when are you going to come down again ? I hope soon because darling I can’t live without you. ‘Rudy all I need is you ‘and baby I will do anything to be with you for ever.” In the last letter dated 8th July, 1964, she writes: “Lover have your got your job? Darling if you are going to Erode please send me your address in the next letter. O. K. love..........Darling I will do anything to come away with you even if it is to risk my life. Rudy I love you........ Lover July 3rd made 6 months we are friendly and I hope it our friendship will be for ever. But the day we break up will be the day I must and have to die.” It is clear from the above that the girl had been wound up to such a pitch of hatred of her mother Mrs. Royle and of her surroundings and was making all out efforts to prevail upon the appellant to take her out of her parents and marry her. It is in these circumstances that she was found in the company of the appellant from the night of 20th July, 1964, till she was taken away by her mother and police constables on the afternoon of 23rd July, 1964. It is in these circumstances that she was found in the company of the appellant from the night of 20th July, 1964, till she was taken away by her mother and police constables on the afternoon of 23rd July, 1964. I am, therefore, of the opinion that unless there is clear and cogent evidence to show that she did not leave her father’s house voluntarily by herself and that her leaving was brought about by the appellant there can be no conviction against him for an offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In the state of evidence on record it is idle for any one to contend that it is the appellant that actually made her to abandon her parental house by inducement or promise or blandishment and took her away from her house on the night of 20th July, 1964. On the other hand the letters of the girl speak eloquently of the fact that she was determined to leave her home and insisted on leaving with him. The mere fact that the appellant yielded to her request and took her away with him, taking no active part in the matter, does not make him liable to answer a charge punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. I have carefully examined the entire evidence placed on record. I am of the opinion that in the state of evidence on record the learned Sessions Jugde is not at all justified in finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The judgment of the learned trial Judge cannot be justified. In the result, therefore, for the reasons stated above this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The bail-bonds are ordered to be cancelled. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.