D. G. DESHPANDE, J.: - These two Writ Petitions are challenging the detention order. The arguments were advanced by Mr. Chitnis, Senior Counsel with Mr. Tripathi for the petitioners/detenus, and by Mr. Borulkar, PP, Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar, APP and Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the Respondents - State.

2. So far as Writ Petition No. 987 of 2005 is concerned, the detenu is Mohammed Bilal H3.nif Shaikh @ Bilal Bachkana. So far as Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2005 is concerned, the detenu is Uday Mahadev Sawant.

3. Mr. Chitnis made certain legal submissions only for both the matters, and, therefore, we are, dealing with only those legal submissions. For the purpose of the present judgment, we are setting out facts in Writ Petition No. 987 of 2005. The order of detention in \his writ petition is dated 18 - 1 - 2005 issued by A. N. Roy. Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumhai. It is under sob - section (2) of section 3 of The Mahatashtta Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers. Drug Offenders and Dangerous persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act"). The grounds of detention are of the same date i.e. 18 - 1 - 2005. In paragraph 4 grounds of detention are mentioned. One C.R. No. 00104 dated 21 - 9 - 2004 under section 381, 34 01 Indian Penal Code registered at J. J. Marg Police Station is there, along with two in - camera statements referred to in paragraph 4(b)(i) of witness No. 1 and in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of witness No.2. Detention Authority in paragraph 5 has stated that it was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person as defined in section 2(b - 1) of the MPDA Act, and, therefore the activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, he was required to be detained and detention order was accordingly passed.

4, In Writ Petition No. 1591012005 the detention order is dated 8.4 - 2005 (Annexure A). Grounds of detention are of the even date (Annexure "B"). paragraph 5 is the specific paragraph. One C.R. No. 13/05 was registered against the petitioner on 16 - 1 - 2005 under sections 3134, 381. 504. Indian Penal Code, and. then there are two in - camera statements. Grounds of detention are mentioned in paragraph 5(b)(i) and 5(b)(ii), on the basis 01 which detention orders were passed.

5, It was the main contention of Mr. Chitnis that in - camera statements, as such cannot be used for detention, because according to him, if in - camera statements disclose a cognizable offence, then there is no option to police but to register FIR and investigate the offence. If no offence is registered and no investigation is done, Then those in - camera statements, cannot be considered for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner "habitually commits any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code." According to Mr. Chitnis, the word "punishable" means "punished" and no punishment is possible unless the offence is registered or FIR is registered. Mr. Chitnis made his submission on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, and further contended that even though this judgment of Bhajan Lal is considered by \he Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Sudhakar Nikam V. A.N. ROY commissioner of police and ors. reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 1684. the judgment in Sachin Nikam s case is per incuriam, because important paragraphs of the Supreme Court Judgment in Bhajan Lals case, viz. paragraph Nos. 28, 29, 32, 34 to 39,41 to 48,50 to 60, 15,83 and 95, were not at all considered. According to him the judgment in sachin Niknms case is also sub - silentio on this ground. In support of his contention that "punishable" means "punished", be relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1989) 1 SCC 235 Sube Singh and others s. State of Haryana and others. Mr. Chitnis, there lore in this background