V.K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J.

1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenu Jay @ Nunya Rajesh Bhosale has impugned the detention order dated 19.5.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police of Pune detaining him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996) (Amendment - 2009) (Hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA" Act.)

The detention order along with grounds of detention which are also dated 19.5.2015 was served on the petitioner on 19.5.2015 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure-A and B to this petition. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) shows that the detention order has been based on two CRs. and three incamera statements. The first CR i.e. CR No. 91 of 2015 of Faraskhana Police Station is under Sections 384, 386 and 504 of IPC. The second CR i.e. CR No. 3088 of 2015 of Faraskhana Police Station is under Sections 37(1)(3) read with 135 of Maharashtra Police Act and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act which relates to the detenu being found in possession of a 'koyta' by the police when they were on patrolling duty within the limits of Faraskhana police station. Thereafter reliance is placed on three incamera statements.

2. As far as the three incamera statements are concerned, a ground has been raised in relation to the same in the petition. In the said ground, it is stated that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three statements of witnesses "A", "B" and "C" recorded incamera for issuing detention order, however, the three incamera statements were not verified by any Senior Police Officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or above and further no copy of verification has been furnished to the detenu along with the statements. Thus, the right of the detenu to make an effective representation against the detention order has been violated. This ground has been replied by the detaining authority in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Division, Pune has verified the statements of witnesses "A", "B" and "C" however, there is no averment in the affidavit about furnishing of the verification by the Assistant Commissioner of Police of the incamera statements to the detenu. The learned A.P.P. has produced before us original record and we find that the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) has put an endorsement on all the statements that he has verified the three incamera statements. This endorsement is found at the bottom of all three incamera statements. However, it is noticed that in the copies of incamera statements of witnesses "A", "B" and "C" which have been supplied to the detenu, the endorsement of the ACP does not read that "statements are verified" by the ACP. Instead of the word "verified" what is stated in the copy furnished to the detenu is the word "perused". As stated earlier, the original file shows that all the three incamera statements were verified by the ACP but this verification by the ACP has not been furnished to the detenu.

3. Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was mandatory for the detaining authority to furnish the verification of the incamera statements by the ACP to the detenu and non-supply of the same affects the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and thus, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. In this connection, Mr. Tripathi relied firstly on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shubhangi Sawant v. R.H. Mendonca reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri.) 68. This was a case where the petitioner was given only the copies of incamera statements, without verification m