JUDGMENT Walford, J. - This is a criminal revision by Ram Lakhan, who is bound down u/s 110, Code of Criminal Procedure to be of good behavior for one year and to execute a personal bond for Rs. 200 and furnish two sureties in the like manner. He was prosecuted by the police together with two other parsons namely Ram Naik and Ram Tawwakkal. All the three went up in appeal to the Session? Judge Fyzabad who set aside the order passed against Ram Naik but upheld the order binding down the two Appellants before him. Ram Tawwakkal has accepted his fate and has not come up in revision. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has pressed three main grounds in his contention before me. The first is that his client ought not to have tried jointly with the other two persons by the Magistrate and by misjoinder in trial his case has been prejudiced. 2. The facts alleged against the applicant are that he together with the two persons with whom he was tried were constantly associated in their criminal activities or at least had the reputation of being associates in various crimes. u/s 117(5) Code of Criminal Procedure joint trial of persons who have been associated together in the matter under enquiry, is permissible. A similar question was considered in Ram Din v. Emperor 1945 O.A. (C.C.) 231: A.W.R. (C.C.) 231: O.W.N. 361 where it was held: Where several accused are charged for being habitual thieves and forming a gang for the purposes of their criminal activities, the case falls u/s 117(5) Code of Criminal Procedure and on enquiry held against all of them jointly is not illegal. 3. From the facts alleged and proved there is no substance in this contention. 4. The next point raised by the Learned Counsel for. the applicant is that the allegations against his client and his associates were such as to fall within the purview of Section 401, Indian Penal Code and therefore if there was any substance in those allegations they should have been tried under the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 110, Code of Criminal Procedure. I regret I do not feel impressed by the arguments. I regret I do not feel impressed by the arguments. It is true that persons forming a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery and not being a gang of thugs or dacoits are punishable u/s 401, Indian Penal Code, but a reference to Section 110 Code of Criminal Procedure will show that Clause (a) of Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: (a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief or forger. 5. Reading Clause (a) of Section 110 with Sub-Section 5 of Section 117 Code of Criminal Procedure it is clear that one or more persons believed to be habitually committing one or more of the offences mentioned either jointly or severally can be proceeded against u/s 110 Code of Criminal Procedure jointly or severally notwithstanding that their activity may fall within the purview of Section 401, Indian Penal Code. To my mini the difference between the two sections is that u/s 401, Indian Fecal Code it is necessary to prove that several persons have associated together forming a gang for the purpose of habitually commuting theft or robbery and their activities have in fact materialized into active robberies and thefts or attempts at such offences. Whereas Section 110 Code of Criminal Procedure being only a preventive section evidence of strong suspicion and evil repute that such person or persons engage in criminal activities is enough to render them liable to be bound down to be of good behavior. Section 401, Indian Penal Code is punitive while Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure is preventive. 6. The Learned Counsel has lastly argued that the trial Court has not approached the case in a fair manner and that he has not given due consideration to the defense evidence, produced on behalf of his client. He contends that a most respectable witness, namely, Dwarka Prasad Singh, who is a Taluqdar and pays a Government revenue of three thousand rupees had come to give evidence on behalf of Ram Lakhan and the evidence of so respectable a witness ought not to have been rejected in a summary manner by the trial Court. It seems that the witness lives some 10 miles away from the village in which the applicant lives. It seems that the witness lives some 10 miles away from the village in which the applicant lives. It is true that he is the landlord of that village but he has admitted that be visits Puni Bhimpatti only once or twice in a year for a day only and does not know very much about the locality. The teamed Magistrate was, therefore, of the opinion that a person who has no intimate knowledge of the locality or of the persons involved in the case is not a witness whose evidence can help the person on whose behalf he has been summoned. The arguments, advanced before me, were considered in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge and after due consideration be too was of the same opinion as the trial Court so far as the present applicant is concerned. 7. The Learned Counsel further contends that his client had produced 14 witnesses who bad given the applicant a good character. Sitting as a Court of revision it is extremely difficult for me to assess the value of the Ruth or otherwise of the evidence of the witnesses. The learned trial Court had the advantage of seeing them and having found their evidence unsatisfactory unless something startling is pointed out, I can never be in a position to hold that he was wrong, The prosecution examined 25 witnesses one from the village in which the applicant lives and the remainder from surrounding villages. Among these 5 persons had reported commission of crimes in their respective localities in which they had suspected the applicant and some of his companions. The Learned Counsel for the applicant even though invited by me was not really able to offer any explanation as to why this individual, if not so suspected and had not the evil reputation attributed to him should have been falsely implicated in this case. His only reply was that the only witness that came from his village and is a tnukhia was an enemy of his and he suspected his machination in concocting the case. His only reply was that the only witness that came from his village and is a tnukhia was an enemy of his and he suspected his machination in concocting the case. Indeed this would be rather far fetched because there are reports against the applicant by different persons, residing in his own village as well as in the neighboring villages and it would be almost fantastic to hold that this tnukhia of his own village went touring round different villages, inducing various persons to make false reports against the applicant. I have given due consideration to the arguments adduced and I find that there is no substance in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.