JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant has been bound over to be of good behaviour. The police relied upon three classes of evidence relating respectively to: (1) Applicant's association with bad characters; (2) his connexion with specific acts of theft, (3) his general repute. 2. On appeal the District Magistrate rightly ruled out all the evidence of the first of these classes on the ground that there was no proof that the persons with whom applicant is said to have associated are in reality bad characters. As regards the evidence of general repute he remarked that a large proportion of it was not in fact admissible being merely hearsay, and much that was admissible was of very Little value because it had not been properly tested. But he was of opinion that the admissible evidence of general repute coupled with the evidence of the applicant's connexion with what he calls a “long catalogue of crime,” was more than sufficient to justify the orders of the Deputy Magistrate. 3. To me it appears that there is no evidence at all that the applicant was in any way connected with or responsible for any of the specific offences referred to in the record. He has not only never been convicted of any offence, but it is said that he has never even been named on any first report or complaint of a crime or summoned to a criminal Court as an accused person. The so called evidence which is supposed to connect him with various offences consists of (1) Police lists of cases in which he is said to have come under suspicion; (2) the statements of witnesses each of whom says that he suspected the applicant of complicity in this or that isolated offence; (3) a list of cases in which the applicant's house has been searched on suspicion that he had committed some offence. None of this proves that the applicant has committed any offence Police lists of the kind here referred to have been repeatedly held to be inadmissible and suspicion cannot take the place of proof that a man has committed an offence. I may point out also that the evidence regarding the searches has been used in a most unfair manner. Nothing suspicious has ever been found in the man's house. I may point out also that the evidence regarding the searches has been used in a most unfair manner. Nothing suspicious has ever been found in the man's house. This fact is not allowed to count in his favour, but the fact that his house was searched at all is treated as a strong point against him as evidence that the applicant has been in any way convicted of any specific offence. All this is quite worthless. No one would dream of putting forward such materials as evidence in support of a charge of a specific offence. 4. Many Magistrates seem to think that proceedings under Chap. 8, Code of Criminal Procedure, are not governed by the Evidence Act at all and they admit anything which the police choose to pub forward in the name of evidence. 5. When, as in the present case, it is shown that a mass of irrelevant materials has been used as evidence, one has to choose between examining the record in order to ascertain whether there is admissible evidence Sufficient to justify the order which has been passed, and setting aside the proceedings altogether and either ordering a fresh inquiry or leaving it to the Magistrate to take further proceedings if he thinks proper. In the present case I choose the latter alternative, because it appears to me that no serious effort has been made to keep out irrelevant matter and it is impossible to say that the applicant has not been prejudiced by the way in; which the proceedings have been conducted. 6. No less than sixty-three witnesses were produced by the police, but their evidence does not prove that the applicant took part in any of the offences mentioned by them. It seems therefore that, if the applicant is to be bound over, it must be on the strength of such evidence of his general reputation as may be available. 7. As the Deputy Magistrate, who passed the order in this case, seems to have somewhat vague notions as to what is evidence of general repute, a few remarks on the subject may not be out of place. A good specimen of what has been considered valuable evidence of this description is to be found in the evidence of the witness Amir Husain. A good specimen of what has been considered valuable evidence of this description is to be found in the evidence of the witness Amir Husain. This man said that a theft occurred in his house a few years ago, so he sent for some local bad characters and adjured them to tell him whether they had any hand in it. They with one accord took Ganges water, tulsi leaves, etc., in their hands and swore that they were innocent. When pressed to say who had committed the theft, these worthies said that their profession had been taken up by the present applicant. This evidence does toot purport to give the opinion of any considerable body of men regarding the applicant, but merely repeats the self-exculpatory insinuation of a few persons that the applicant may have been responsible for the particular offence that had been committed. 8. It has been suggested more than once that the rulings of this and other High Courts as to the meaning of evidence of general repute make it difficult, if not impossible, for the police to prove by such evidence that a man is an habitual offender. The suggestion, even if well founded, would be no reason for supposing that the Courts had misinterpreted the law. But the suggestion is generally made by those who will not take the trouble to find out what evidence of general repute means or who hold that the words “evidence of general repute or otherwise” in S. 117 of the Code are intended to let in various kinds of so-called evidence which would not be admissible at any ordinary trial. This Court has always held that inquiries under Chap. 8 of the Code are governed by the ordinary rules of evidence, and apart from any difficulty that may arise from the reluctance of people to give evidence in such cases for fear of the consequences to themselves (nothing of this kind is suggested in the present case), there ought to be no difficulty in proving that a man is a habitual thief or robber by proper evidence of general repute, where there really do exist grounds for taking this kind of action against him. 9. 9. Evidence of general repute may be either evidence as to the general opinion of the neighbourhood or community in which the person concerned lives or to which he belongs, or the personal opinion of the witnesses who are examined. The test of the admissibility of evidence of the former kind is whether it shows the general reputation of the man, not necessarily the opinion of the entire community to which he belongs, but at least the opinion of a considerable number of persons. It must not be merely the repetition of what one or two persons have said to the witness. A witness to general repute may, of course, be examined and cross-examined as to his means of knowledge and when he gives his own opinion he may be asked to give the grounds of his opinion and to give the names of the person whom he has heard speak against the character of the persons concerned. 10. It is needless to cite authorities for this. There should be no difficulty in keeping evidence of general repute within proper limits. I trust that if further proceedings are taken against the applicant the Deputy Magistrate will be careful to exclude all irrelevant matter. The order requiring the applicant to furnish security for good behaviour is set aside and if he is still in custody he must be released. I leave it to the Magistrate to decide whether it is advisable to take further proceedings against him.