Judgment :- 1. The Revision is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC I), Erode in CrI.M.P. No.29 of 2008 in S.C. No.8 of 2008. 2. The prosecution filed the aforesaid Petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to mark the First Information Report in connection with a different occurrence alleged as against the petitioner herein for the purpose of proving the bad antecedents of the petitioner ranked as A1. 3. The Court heard the submissions made on either side. 4. The Petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would specifically read that the First Information Report and the charge-sheet in Crime No.87 of 2007 launched under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner herein are sought to be marked to establish his criminal antecedents. 5. The Trial Court, having observed that as the petitioner was arrested only based on the aforesaid First Information Report lodged as against him, the above FIR was relevant for the purpose of trial of the present case for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, allowed the Petition. 6. Adverting to Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is found that in a criminal proceeding, the fact that an accused person has a bad character is totally irrelevant. Such a fact would be relevant only when evidence is let in by the accused concerned to establish that he has got a good character. Here is a case where the prosecution has sought to mark the first information report in Crime No.87 of 2007 on the file of Kangeyam Police Station. In the said case, charge-sheet alone has been filed and the same has not yet been taken cognizance of by the Court concerned. In case, the petitioner herein has been convicted in the said case, then the judgment pronounced as against him would be relevant for the purpose of establishing his bad character. But, at any rate, the prosecution is not entitled to produce the FIR in connection with a pending case to establish the bad character of the accused. 7. It is found that the Trial Court has allowed the Petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution quite against the letter and spirit of Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. 8. 7. It is found that the Trial Court has allowed the Petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution quite against the letter and spirit of Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC I) Erode in CrI.M.P. No.29 of 2008 in S.C. No.8 of 2008 stands set aside and the Revision is allowed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.