Judgment The second accused in C.C.No. 42 of 1975 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the State. The petitioner, along with one Jagannathan, arrayed as first accused in the said case, was convicted for an offence under section 401 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of imposing any sentence, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate released them under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on their entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 250 with one surety for like sum to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The second accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1977 and the first accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1977 against the judgment and orders of the first Court and the appeals came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (West) Division at Coimbatore, and the lower Appellate Court found no warrant for interference and dismissed the appeals by common judgment. The present revision is directed against the said judgment, so far as Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1977 is concerned. 2. Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even on the basis of the evidence placed by the prosecutions, no offence under section 401, Indian Penal Code, could be stated to have been made out. To sustain a conviction under section 401, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has prove four ingredients, viz., (1) that there existed a gang of persons, (ii) that those persons were associated for the purpose of committing theft or robbery, (iii) that theft or robbery was to be committed habitually; and (iv) that the accused was a member of such gang. I do not think it requires any elaboration of the definition of the word “gang”. Its ordinary dictionary meaning is “a number going in company, hence a company or number of persons associated for a particular purpose”. The prosecution in the instant case has examined as many as 72 witnesses, whose evidence made out beyond doubt that there existed a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing thefts of typewriters, fans, cameras, transistors, cycles, etc., from several offices and shops. 3. The prosecution in the instant case has examined as many as 72 witnesses, whose evidence made out beyond doubt that there existed a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing thefts of typewriters, fans, cameras, transistors, cycles, etc., from several offices and shops. 3. Then the next question is as to whether the second accused belonged to any such gang. It is true that the word “belong” implies something more than casual association. It conveys the notion of continuity and the prosecution must prove a more or less continued association of the accused with the gang, of course, extending over a considerable length of time, so as to warrant an inference that the accused identified himself with the gang, the common purpose of which was the habitual commission of either theft or robbery. The Courts below have placed reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 17, 52, 55, 56, 59, 61 and 67 amongst others. It is not possible to expect in cases of this nature evidence of participation of the accused in the actual theft committed by the gang or persons belonging to the gang. If, on an overall appraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, an inference is possible to the effect that the accused had been in association with such a gang, whose common purpose was habitual commission theft, then he must be held to have belonged to the gang and he will come within the mischief of section 401, Indian Penal Code. The conclusions of the two Courts below rest purely on an appreciation of evidence. Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a very vigorous attempt to dislodge the prosecution case, but unfortunately. I have to concur with the conclusions reached by the Courts below because the evidence is overwhelming and has not been impeached successfully to dislodge its authenticity. In the circumstances, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.