2. The order of detention rests on L.A.C. No. 1431/2003 registered at Agripada Police Station on 22-12-2003, C.R. No. 296/03 registered at Agripada Police Station on the same day under sections 452, 324, 427, 506(II) of I.P.C. read with sections 4 and 27 of the Arms Act and two in-camera statements of witnesses A and B recorded on 21-1-04 and 22-1-04 respectively.

3. We have heard Mr. Memon learned Counsel appearing for the detenu at great length. Mr. Memon firstly contended that the grounds of detention indicate non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. He submitted that there is a patent error in the grounds of detention to which neither the Detaining Authority has applied his mind nor the other high ranking officers who have filed affidavits in this petition have applied their mind. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no explanation about this mistake in any of the affidavits.

4. Mr. Memon contended that in ground 5(a) it is alleged that the petitioner was arrested on 22-12-03 at 15-20 hrs. by the Agripada Police on the complaint of P.C Uttam Chavan for allegedly possessing a chopper. However, in ground 5(b) it is alleged that the petitioner along with his associates assaulted his business rival Kashinath Chavan after he returned from his business on 22-12-03, after mid-night at 01.00 hrs. on 23-12-03. The learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner was in police custody on the night of 23-12-03 and hence ground 5(b) is on the face of it false. This submission of Mr. Memon appears attractive but on a closer scrutiny of the material in support of the grounds, we find that there is no substance in it.

5. It is pertinent to note that in the first Information Report of C.R. No. 296/03 the date of this incident is shown as 22-2-03 and time is shown as 01.00 hrs. that means this incident tool place at 1 a.m. on 22-12-03. This is further clear from the statement made by the wife of Kashinath Chavan. She has clearly stated that on 22-12-03 at 1 a.m. when her husband was having his dinner the detenu and his associates came to this house armed with weapons. It appears to us that though complainant Chavan has stated that on 22-12-03 at night when he closed his business and was having his dinner at 1 a.m. the detenu and his associates entered the house, what he in fact wishes to convey is that it is in the early hours of 22-12-03 that he had come home and was having his dinner at 1 a.m.

6. Having perused the F.I.R. and the statements we are of the opinion that there is no inconsistency or any mistake which it can be said was not noticed by the Detaining Authority.

7. It appears that the offence registered at C.R. No. 296 of 2003 was committed on 22-12-03 at 1 a.m. After committing this offence the detenu and his associates ran away. At 15-20 hrs. i.e. 3-20 p.m. on the same day i.e. on 22-12-03, the detenu was arrested in connection with L.A.C. No. 1431/03. On 24-12-03, he was taken in custody from the Addl. Chief M.M. 46th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, on transfer warrant in C.R. No. 296/03. If the grounds and the material in support thereof are read in their proper perspective, it is clear that there is no non-application of mind. This submission of Mr. Memon deserves to be rejected and it is rejected as such.

8. Mr. Memon then contended that the incid