one Chandrakala. (a woman following the profession of a prostitute) to the Guizar Theatre, and accordingly, Patilba, the eighth accused, Chandrakala and .Anusaya went to the Theatre. .At the instance of the appellant, Anusaya and Chandrakala were taken by one Devidas (who has given evidence as an approver) to Bohori Kathada. 8ub-Inspector Pagare of the Police Station City Police Chowk, Aurangabad, had reoeived information that some persons were consuming illicit liquor in a room at Bohori Kathada and he arranged to raid that house. Pagare found accused Nos. 1 to 5 and Devidae in a room consuming liquor. He also found Chandrakala and Anusaya in an inner apartment. Persons found in the room were arrested and sent for medical examination to the local Civil Hospital, and it was found that Anusaya· had not attained the age of 18 years. Pagare then laid an information before the Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, for offence punishable under the Bombay Pl'ohibition Act, 1949-(we are informed at the Bar that in respect of those offences the accused w9re acquitted and we are not concerned in this case with those offence) -and,,.a.lso for offences punishable under ss. 366 and 3ti'S! of the Indian Penal Code against nine persons including the appellant, Patilba and Devidas. In the course of proceedings for commitment to the Court of Session, Devidas was tendered pardon on condition of his making a full disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge.. The case was then committed to the Court of Session, Aura-ngabad for trial. The Court of Session held that accused Noa. I to 4 had in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped Anusaya-a girl below the age of 18 years-in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, and the seventh accused Patilba had.· abetted the commission of that offence, and that accused Nos. I to 4 and 7 had induced Anusaya to
