JUDGMENT Walford, J. - In this case the applicant Ram Din was prosecuted together with one Shank u/s 110, Cr. P.C. and was bound over to keep the peace for a period of one year and ordered to furnish two sureties of Rs. 200 each and to execute a personal bond of Rs. 200 or in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The applicant's appeal before the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, was dismissed. He has now come up; in revision against the order of the lower Court. His co-accused Shankar has not come up in revision against the orders passed against him. 3. In this case the prosecution examined 28 witnesses in support of their case, and 19 witnesses were produced by the defence. Notice was issued upon the applicant as well as the person who was his co-accused jointly u/s 112 of. the Criminal Procedure Code to show cause why they should not furnish security to be of good behavior and the allegation against them that they were historysheeters, A class, and that the two of them who had formed a gang were by habit thieves and housebreakers. 4. In revision the learned Counsel has taken up three points : Firstly, that the joint inquiry against the two accused was illegal and the order u/s 117 (4), Cr. P.C. is vitiated. The learned Counsel has based this contention on the strength of certain rulings which upon examination are not applicable to this case. The gist of the authorities upon which the learned Counsel has relied is to the effect that, although Sub-section (6) of Section 117 Cr. P.C. permits a joint trial of persons associated together with regard to Section 110 (d) and (c), such a joint trial is not desirable when an allegation falling u/s 110 ((f) is also charged, as they cannot be a connection between the persons in regard to their character so as to make them dangerous persons and to mike them hazardous to the community. It will be observed that the principle laid down in these rulings is not applicable to the present case. In this case the applicant and his co-accused were charged for being habitual thieves and that they had formed a gang for the purposes of their criminal activities. I am of the opinion that the present case falls under Sub-section (5) of Section 117, Cr. In this case the applicant and his co-accused were charged for being habitual thieves and that they had formed a gang for the purposes of their criminal activities. I am of the opinion that the present case falls under Sub-section (5) of Section 117, Cr. P.C. which provides that. Where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt with in the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think fit. 5. I am satisfied that there is no illegality in the inquiry held by the Magistrate against the applicant and his co-accused jointly. 6. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the Magistrate had not given a distinct finding against the applicant. I find that there is no substance in the argument addressed by the learned counsel Both the applicant and his co- accused were tried jointly. The evidence against both of them was identical and it was therefore no irregularity or illegality in the learned Judge holding that the allegations of the prosecution were proved against both the accused persons before him. 7. The third contention of the learned Counsel is to the effect that, there being no documentary evidence to show any previous suspicion against the applicant, the evidence of bad character be- comes shaky and does not justify the order. This is a pure question of fact. Both the Courts below had carefully considered the evidence and they were satisfied that the allegations against the applicant and his co-accused were true, and they were competent to act upon the evidence before them. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the quantum of evidence necessary before a Court can act thereon, nor is it necessary that the suspicion against a person charged u/s 110, Cr. P.C. must be embodied in some document. Under the law as provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 117, Cr. P.C. 'The fact that a person is a habitual offender or is so desperate or dangerous as to render his being at large with- out security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence of general repute or other- wise." The learned Counsel has urged that, having regard to the fact that 19 witnesses were produced on behalf of the defence, the Court ought not to have believed the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I regret I cannot accept this contention. When a large body of persons have come forward to swear as to the reputation of a person and he is not able to show anything as to why the witnesses have come forward to give him a bad character, such evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside. The applicant while being examined by the Magistrate was asked whether he could give any reasons as to why these witnesses had come forward to depose against him, he answered that he was unable to' give any reason. As I have mentioned above, both the Courts below have carefully considered the evidence against the applicant and were satisfied that he was a person who was reputed to be by habit a house-breaker and a thief, I see no reason as to disbelieve" the evidence which the Courts below have accepted. The application is dismissed.