JUDGMENT Ryves, J.
1. In this case Kallu has been ordered to be bound down under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The notice issued against him under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that he is a thief by profession and habitually commits extortion. A large number of witnesses for the prosecution were produced and they generally say that Kallu has the reputation of being a harbourer of thieves and commits extortion. They go on to say that he has no other means of livelihood, and in cross-examination, most of them said that he had no cultivation or business, The learned Magistrate has accepted this evidence and on the strength of this evidence has passed the order under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was confirmed in appeal, but it is quite evident from the learned District Magistrate's order that the evidence against Kallu is extremely slight; indeed, he says so himself, The accused, who is a man of sixty years, had apparently never been suspected by the Police until early in this year when a dacoity was committed at the house of one Gobardhan Jat. He was respected, not of having taken part in the dacoity, but of helping one of the accused, a relation of his, in the dacoity to evade arrest. It was only after that that a history sheet was opened for him. The District Magistrate admits that there wag no evidence of his having been suspected in any definite tale either before or after history sheet was opened, and that the case can only succeed if the evidence of general repute can be believed. It is of course, very easy for witnesses to say that so and so is by repute a bed character. All these witnesses, seventeen in number, who were produced for the prosecution, were tested as to their real knowledge of Kallu's circumstances and they said that they knew nothing about the accused personally beyond his reputation. The District Magistrate has found, as did the trying Magistrate, that the witnesses for the defence are to be believed when they say that the accused has some cultivation, has a bullock and camel, does a little money-lending and a little grain-dealing business. All the prosecution witnesses, although they are quite aware that this man has such an evil reputation, are entirely ignorant of the business serried on by him which, however, must be patent to the people of the locality. A man cannot have grain-dealing, and cultivation and use oxen and camels without it being apparent to his neighbors, I am, therefore, not at all satisfied with the evidence for the prosecution. I note, however, that the District Magistrate, having held that the accused carries on cultivation and business in a small way, goes on to say that his position in life makes it so highly probable that he is an associate of thieves and dacoits; that he apparently for this reason real justified in supporting the order of the Magistrate. It would be a dangerously broad rule to lay down that a small shop keeper must, therefore, be an associate of dacoits and that it is necessary, therefore, to bind him down.
2. In my opinion, this is not a case, on the Magistrate's own showing, for an order under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. I set aside the conviction and order that security bonds be discharged.