In Re: Rangaswami Nayudu and ors.

- - 2. although it is true that section 107, criminal procedure code, gives authority to a court to call upon persons to furnish security only if it is likely that a breach of the peace will occur in the future, yet i have no reason to believe that the magistrate will pass an order against the petitioners unless he is satisfied that breaches of the peace will occur in the future as they have occurred in the past. 3. on the second point, i am satisfied that there is no illegality in admitting evidence in the security proceedings of a specific charge which is the subject of a current trial. i have no doubt that they will do their best to make it possible for the accused to conduct their defences without undue difficulty......proceedings have been instituted against the petitioners under section 107, criminal procedure code. this court has been asked to quash the proceedings because it has been held by this court that breaches of the peace in the past do not justify an order under section 107. in the alternative, i am asked to order that evidence of specific offences which are the subject of separate trials should not be admitted in the security proceedings.2. although it is true that section 107, criminal procedure code, gives authority to a court to call upon persons to furnish security only if it is likely that a breach of the peace will occur in the future, yet i have no reason to believe that the magistrate will pass an order against the petitioners unless he is satisfied that breaches of the peace will occur in the future as they have occurred in the past. i am not prepared to anticipate what the learned magistrate is going to say or do in these proceedings.3. on the second point, i am satisfied that there is no illegality in admitting evidence in the security proceedings of a specific charge which is the subject of a current trial. the scope of the proceedings is entirely different, one being concerned with offences committed in the past and the other being concerned with the likelihood of a breach of the peace in the future. if the same evidence is relevant to both proceedings, i can see no reason why the same evidence should not be used in both those proceedings. the decisions reported in lachman v. emperor (1927) cri.l.j. 515 and budhan v. emperor (1925) 88 i. c. 362 of the allahabad high court are to the effect that evidence of the same matters can be used in the two classes of proceedings.4. it is true that if security proceedings go on at the same time as the regular trial for offences punishable under the indian penal code, hardships may be caused to the accused, and it may be very difficult for them to conduct two defences at the same time. i have no reason however to.....