P.C. Banerji, J.
1. This is an application for revision of an order directing the applicant under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for good behaviour, on the ground that the applicant was unable to give a satisfactory account of himself. It appears that in the city of Meerut a number of persons, consisting of adults, women, boys and girls, were encamped at the camping ground. They had some ponies with them. The suspicion of the Police was roused against the men belonging to the party and a case was instituted against them calling upon them under Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show cause why they should not furnish security for good behaviour, on the ground that they bad no ostensible means of subsistence and that they could not give a satisfactory account of themselves. The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of opinion that the first part of the charge was not established, but; he came to the conclusion that the persons who had been placed before him had not been able to give a satisfactory account of themselves and accordingly directed them to furnish security for a small amount. It has been found that the applicant and his companions were residents of Bindki in the District of Fatehpur, where they have their usual place of residence. They go about selling cattle for about eight months in the year and return to their homes in the rainy season. In the present case it was proved that these men were in the habit of selling cattle, that they bad money in deposit with a banker and that at the time when the proceedings against them were instituted, they had a fairly large sum of money in their possession. It is true that they stated that they had come to Garhmukhtesar in the Meerut District some months prior to the month of February 1919, when they were found by the Police at the place where they had encamped, that after selling off their cattle they were going back to their homes and had stayed there because the Police were interfering with them. This last statement was undoubtedly not established. It may be that they had not sufficient reasons for making a long stay at the place where they were encamped but as has been stated above, they gave a good account of themselves which has not been disbelieved, namely, that they were residents of Bindki where they bad their own houses; that they were dealers in cattle and that they had money of their own. It cannot be said in these circumstances that they were unable to give a satisfactory account of themselves. They had clearly ostensible means of livelihood and their statement in this respect was accepted by the Court. They had given a reasonable account of themselves and it would be stretching language to hold that they had failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves. This is a much stronger case in favour of the applicant and his companions than the case of Ghulam Jilani v. Emperor 51 Ind. Cas. 161 : 17 A.L.J. 432 : 20 Cr. L.J. 401. In my opinion the case of the applicant and of his companions did not come within the purview of Clause (6) of Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, and the order directing them to furnish security for good behaviour ought not to have been passed. I accordingly set aside that order and direct that the security furnished, if any, be discharged. This order will apply to the cases of the other persons concerned in this matter who have not filed any application for revision. As to them I make the order in exercise of the powers of revision vested in this Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code.