character, to have committed the offence for which he is being tried. On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission of other crime does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue before the jury: and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be opened to the accused The position above stated was also upheld in the case of R.vSims (1946)1 K B 531. This case involves a charge of the offence of sodomy and gross indecency of the accused with four men. The Court held that the evidence of each accuser was admissible. But it is worthy of note that the position in the criminal case of R.v Sims (1946)1 K B 531 was reverted three years later in the case of Noor Mohammed v R (1949) AC 182 where the Privy Council held that evidence of previous similar acts were wrongly admitted in evidence and the conviction of the accused person was quashed. Notwithstanding the position held in the case of Noor Mohammed v R (1949) AC 182 above, the principle laid down by Lord Herschel in Makin’s case was later affirmed by the House of Lords in the case of Harris v DPP (1952) AC 694 though the appeal of the appellant was successful. Noteworthy is the case of Boardman v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] 3 All E. R. 887, where the House of Lords held that evidence of similar offence will be admissible in an exceptional situation where it shows that those other offences share with the offence charged common features of such an unusual nature and striking similarity that it would be an affront to common sense to assert that the similarity was explicable on the