2. Pursuant to the aforesaid detention order the petitioner was taken into custody on 25-2-2002. The said order was passed on the basis of two crimes registered against the detenu and two in-camera statements. The first C.R. pertains to the incident which took place on 13-11-2001 being C.R. No. 498 of 2001 registered at Vakola Police Station on the complaint of one Rajesh Tiwari for the offences under sections 171, 420 and 34 of I.P.C. The second C.R. was registered in respect of the incident which took place on 24-11-2001 being C.R. No. 510 of 2001 registered by the same Police Station for offences under sections 399, 402 of I.P.C. read with sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Arms Act i.e. for preparation of committing dacoity. Besides the above two crimes, two in-camera statements were recorded against the detenu, in which allegation is made that the detenu along with his associates collects hapta money from contractors, shop keepers and jewellers by giving threats on the points of revolver and chopper and had also entered in the shop of a witness, abused him and demanded money by holding out threats to him.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid four incidents, the Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was a weapon wielding desperado and had struck terror in the minds of people living in the areas of C.S.T. Road, Kalina and area near R.K. Hospital of Vakola Police Station and areas of Bharat Nagar, Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Shastri Nagar of Kherwadi Police Station and adjoining areas and had become a perpetual danger to the society at large and accordingly exercised the powers under the provisions of section 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act.

4. Mr. Tripathi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised only one contention before us and argued that it is not the case of public order but the C.Rs. registered against the petitioner pertain to law and order and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction formed by the Detaining Authority on the basis of the aforesaid material is vitiated and liable to be struck down. The said ground has been taken in paragraph 6(B) of the petition.

5. In order to substantiate his contention. Mr. Tripathi, first of all, took us through the grounds of detention mentioned in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the grounds of detention pertaining to the C.R. No. 498 of 2001 and argued that the offence under section 171 of the I.P.C. is not covered by or cannot be relied on for the purpose of applying the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act but only the offence of cheating will be applicable. The complaint lodged against the detenu is to the effect that the detenu posed himself as C.I.D. Officer and wanted to check the bag of the complainant which he was carrying while travelling in an autorickshaw. The bag was containing Rs. 20,000/-. The detenu inserted his hand inside the bag and took out the money and asked the complainant whether he was carrying fake notes and thereafter, pretending that he had kept back the cash in the same bag, closed it and handed it over to the complainant. But afterwards the complainant found that the cash of Rs. 20,000/- was missing and that is how the complaint of cheating was filed. In the second crime registered against the detenu the allegations were that the detenu along with his associates was nabbed by the police on the receipt of information. The detenu and his associates were noticed in a car parked on the south side of hotel Meena on the C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. At that time the detenu was found in possession of a chopper while his associates were found with revolver loaded with one live cartridge and one more live cartridge in pant