JUDGMENT : RAFIQ, J. This is an application in revision against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Bulandshahr, confirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, directing the applicant and two others to furnish security to be of good behaviour, for one year, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for that period. The learned District Magistrate, in his order, dated the 5th of November, 1912, does not discuss the evidence in the case but says that, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant before him, he is of opinion that the order appealed against is justified. It is contended for the applicant that, under these circumstances, the evidence in the case should be considered by the Court in order to decide whether the applicant should be made to furnish security to be of good behaviour. I have heard the entire evidence in the case and the arguments by the learned Counsel for either side. It appears that the applicant was charged with dacoity in 1911, and was committed to the Court of Session, but was acquitted. Soon after his acquittal he was challaned under section 110 and Mr. Gordon, Deputy Magistrate, made an order calling on him to furnish security to be of good behaviour for two years. The proceedings were submitted to the Court of Session and they were set aside by the latter court. Within eighteen months of the order of the Sessions Court the applicant and two others were again sent up, by the police of Bulandshahr op the charge of being habitual thieves and robbers. The police produced sixteen witnesses in support of the charge, and the applicant and his comrades examined nineteen witnesses to rebut the prosecution evidence. The evidence for the crown may be sub-divided into three heads, namely, (i) specific instances in which the applicant was suspected, (2) the company he keeps, and (3), the reputation he enjoys in the neighbourhood. Now the evidence as to the cases in which the applicant was suspected cannot be said to fall within the meaning of general repute, under section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This view of the law is borne out by an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1911. Now the evidence as to the cases in which the applicant was suspected cannot be said to fall within the meaning of general repute, under section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This view of the law is borne out by an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 344 of 1911. The evidence, as to the company the applicant keeps is said to be one of the grounds on which the people of the neighbourhood have formed their opinion of the character of the applicant. The third kind of evidence, namely, that of general repute, was no doubt admissible and relevant to the charge brought against the applicant. Of the witnesses for the crown only two came from the village of the applicant. The latter has examined nineteen witnesses, most of whom come from his village or form very close to it. All of them, except one who professes ignorance of fife character of the applicant, swear that the applicant bears a good character in his village and in the neighbourhood. According to their evidence the applicant is by general repute a man of good character. It is also in evidence for the defence that there is enmity between the applicant and the Mukhia of the village. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rejected the evidence for the defence, on the ground that some of the witnesses must be related to the applicant and that the defence witnesses are not so well off as some of the witnesses for the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence, relationship cannot be inferred. The fact that some of the witnesses for the prosecution are better off than the witnesses for the defence, is no reason to disbelieve the latter. I think that the evidence for the defence is just as good as that for the prosecution. It has been held in this Court more than once that where the evidence is equally balanced in a case under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no order requiring security should be made. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the order of the lower courts calling on the applicant to furnish security. If security has been furnished the bonds will be cancelled.