In Re: Thirunavukkarasu And Ors. vs Unknown on 12 November, 1958
7. Any evidence which would be relevant to the information under enquiry would be admissible. The existence of a number of previous convictions or acquittals in a number of previous cases will not be substantive evidence in proceedings under Section 107 as in the case of proceedings under section No. The existence of previous convictions for offences such as theft is a matter which may and should be taken into consideration as indicating the character and disposition of the counter-petitioner in proceedings under Section 110(Section 54, Explanation 2, of the Evidence Act), though the existence of such a conviction is not by itself sufficient for an order for security. Weight and due regard must be given to the period that has elapsed subsequent to the last conviction in order to see whether during that period he has shown a disposition to conduct himself properly or whether there are indications that he has continued the previous course though he may not have actually brought himself within the clutches of law. Similarly cases of acquittal may be taken into consideration under section no because where evidence is taken as to reputation, the Court cannot and should not exclude the reasons which induced the members of the community to form a bad opinion of the accused and if their opinion is based wholly or partly on the belief that he had committed a crime which has not been brought home to him, the Court cannot rule out as inadmissible all evidence on which the belief of the witness is based. Hence instances of specific crimes are admissible evidence although they are not supported by evidence of such amount and value as would secure a conviction for a substantive offence. It has been held that evidence relating to the incident which formed the subject-matter of the previous trial cannot be excluded ; the fact of acquittal although it may diminish and destroy value of the evidence, has not the effect of rendering such evidence inadmissible. Evidence of repute no doubt cannot be let in proceedings under Section 107 as in the case of proceedings under section No. But even in the case of proceedings under Section 107 reports or complaints by the several prosecution witnesses on various dates regarding the past conduct of the accused and his disposition to use violence, though not substantive evidence of the matters mentioned in them, are admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate what the witnesses testify in Court that the person sought to be bound over is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or do a harmful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Khetrabasi Sahu v. Emperor 19 Crl. L.J. 246 : A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 183, Rangaswami Nayudu, In re (1943) 1 M.L.J. 246 : 44 Crl. L.J. 756 : A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 394.