1. The case is a very clear one. All the appellants have been rightly convicted, and I dismiss the appeal. What delayed my decision for a considerable time was by reason of a second similar charge against Sisram and Debi for seducing the same girl. This refers to appeal No. 97. The learned Judge has not explained the circumstances. What the learned Government Pleader and I gather is that Sisram and Debi were separately tried for offering the girl after seduction to separate persons for sale. An offence under Section 366 A, however, is one of inducement with a particular object, and when after inducement the offender offers the girl to several persons, a fresh offence is not committed at every fresh offer for sale. Several offers for sale evidence the criminal intention of the offender just as much as one offer for sale. Under the circumstances once Sisram and Debi were convicted of seducing the girl they could not be convicted over again for the same seduction unless in a case where the girl had returned to her parents and then subsequently there had been a fresh seduction. Such is, however, not the case in appeal No. 97. The conviction in the case of appeal No. 97 would have been fully justified if there had not been a previous conviction in appeal No. 98. Under Section 397, Criminal P.C., this Court has power to direct separate sentences of separate trials to run concurrently. The order in appeal No. 97, therefore, shall be that the sentence in that case shall run concurrently with the sentence in appeal No. 98, and that otherwise the appeal is dismissed.