B.R. GAVAI, J. :- The petition challenges the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by respondent no.2 - Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, vide which, the petitioner has been detained for a period of one year by exercising the powers under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Person and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Amendment of 2009).

2. The material, which has been taken into consideration by the authority is three past cases registered against the present petitioner and two recent offences registered against him as under :

Sr. no. P.Stn and Cr. No. Under Section Date of Offence C.C. No. and date Remarks

1. Sakkardara 414/2007 454, 457, 380 IPC 21.07.2007 4268/07 05.12.07 Court Pending

2. Nandanwan 192/2008 379 IPC 06.08.2008 472/09 31.01.09 Court Pending

3. Nandanwan 3199/2011 4/25 Indian Arms Act r/w 135 Bom. Police Act 29.11.2011 288/12 06.02.12 Court Pending

Sr. no. P.Stn and Sumar No. Under Section Date of Initiation Court Case No. & date Remarks

1. Nandanwan 71/2008 110 Cr.P.C. 06.08.2008 211/08 06.08.08 Case Closed

2. Nandanwan 105/2011 110 Cr.P.C. 29.11.2011 231/11 29.11.11 Final Bond for a Period of one year from 05.12.2011

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that in addition to aforesaid cases, the respondent no.2 has also taken into consideration two in-camera statements purportedly recorded in the 2nd and 3rd week of August, 2012.

3. The order of detention dated 23.11.2012 has been affirmed by the State of Maharashtra by order dated 20.12.2012 by exercising power vested in it under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the said Act. The Advisory Board has also granted its approval on 15.12.2012.

4. Mr. Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is vitiated on several grounds. It is firstly submitted that two in-camera statements, which are relied upon by the authority, are the fabricated documents. He submitted that the said in-camera statements do not mention the date on which the alleged incident had taken place. He submitted that the Police Inspector has fabricated the said documents in order to rope the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act of 1981.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the cases which are registered against the petitioner would amount to at the most prejudicial law and order problem and not the public order. The learned counsel submitted that the alleged offences registered are against particular individuals and therefore, not affecting the public order. It is further submitted that there has been inordinate delay in processing the file. He submitted that though the specific ground is taken, there is no reply to the same. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pradeep NiIkanth Paturkar vs. S. Ramamurthi and others, reported in 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 61.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the last alleged offence, on which reliance is placed, were registered in the month of August, 2012, whereas, the impugned order is passed in the month of November, 2012. The learned counsel further submitted that the order has no nexus or proximity with the alleged activities of the petitioner and therefore, on this ground also, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. On the contrary, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the respondent no.2-authority has taken into consideration all the relevant material while passing the impugned order. Learned Addl. P.P. submitted that perusal of in-camera statements would clearly reveal that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the public order. She submitted that even the activities of the petitioner, for which Crime No. 232/2012 is registered would reveal that the said act is prejudicial to the public order. She further submitted that