D. D. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petition is directed against the order dated 6-9-2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 under section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous persons Act, 1981 as well as order dated 25-10-2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby order dated 6-9-2004 came to be confirmed.

( 3 ) SHRI Daga learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the respondent No. 2 Detaining Authority while formulating grounds of detention has on two in camera statement of witnesses a and b. In para (7) of the detention order dated 6-9-2004, it is stated that copies of the documents placed before the Detaining Authority were enclosed with the charge-sheet, which the detenu may verify and acknowledge the same and in camera statements start from ground 5. 1 to ground 5. 2. 2 of the grounds of detention. It was contended that the said copies of the two in camera statements upon which reliance is placed by the respondent No. 2 Detaining Authority are not supplied to the detenu along with charge- sheet. It was submitted that because of non-supply of documents, i. e. in camera statements, which were relied upon by the respondent No. 2 and which form an integral part of the grounds of detention, the detenu is deprived of an opportunity of making effective representation against the order of detention and, therefore, right of effective representation guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of the petitioner is violated, consequently the order of detention is bad in law. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the following judgments of this Court: 1) (Smt. Subhangi Tukaram Sawant v. Shri R. H. Mendonca and others), 2001 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. (F. B.)526 : 2001 All. M. R. (Cri) 68. 2) (Smt. Gobibai V. Ghanavat v. State of Maharashtra and others), 2003 bom. C. R. (Cri.) 851 : 2003 All. M. R. (Cri.) 406. 3) (Shri Vijay Ramchandra Angre v. Shri S. M. Shangari and others), 2003 B. C. I. 808 : 2004 All. M. R. (Cri.)1974.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Daga further contended that detenu has a right to have copies of the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while formulating the grounds of detention. The words effective representation appearing in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution must be construed to provide real and meaningful opportunity to the detenu to put up his defence in his representation. If the words effective representation are interpreted in an artificial or fanciful manner, then it would defeat the very object of not only article 22 (5), but also Article 21 of the Constitution. It is manifest that when the Detaining Authority applies its mind to the documents and material, which form the basis of detention, then there could be no difficulty in supplying the same to the detenu. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Kamla kanhaiyalal Khushalani v. State of Maharashtra and another), A. I. R 1981 S. C. 814.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Daga further argued that the impugned detention order is based on two crimes, i. e. Crime No. 127/2004 for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 335/2004 for the offence under sections 384, 294 and 506 of Indian penal code. It was submitted that so far as first Crime No. 127/2004 is concerned, petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the matter on 14-6-2004. The state has not challenged the said order. So far as second crime is concerned, same is registered at the instance of one Raju Jahajpure on 20-8-2004. The petitioner though presently in custody is not arrested in the said crime. However, on 24-8-2004, complainant Raju has sworn an affidavit tha