Important Point – The original produced before us carry signature of in camera witnesses obviously those signatures could not have been and are not communicated to petitioner.

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The petitioner a detenu assails order of detention dated 12.09.2016 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Act). This Court had issued notice on 23.12.2016 for final disposal. It was made returnable on 19.01.2017.

2. On 29.03.2017 matter was listed before this Bench and perusal of original records was felt essential. Hence, matter came to be adjourned. It has been heard today finally. Accordingly, we issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

3. Advocate Jaltare, appearing for petitioner has in addition to other points, submits that out of total 28 cases mentioned in chart forming of proposal, petitioner has been acquitted from 22 cases. Only 4 cases out of remaining 6 pending were relevant and have been looked into by the authority, but then acquittal from 2 cases has been overlooked. He further submits that in offence mentioned at Sr. No.25 i.e. Crime No.0014/2013 of Police Station Deori, petitioner had been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Application No.169 of 2014, after noticing that identity of present petitioner as Driver of the Car has not been established. This important observation has also been lost sight while passing the order of detention.

4. Inviting attention to incamera statement of witness-A dated 24.08.2016 and incamera statement of witness-B dated 25.08.2016, he urges that portion removed from it to suppress identity of the concerned witnesses in fact rendered entire document useless. According to him, content remaining therein do not make any sense and hence, an opportunity to effectively defend himself stands negated. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Abdul Rehman Abdul Wahid Vs. Shri D.N. Jadhav & Ors. reported in 2008 AllMR(Cri) 2497, to buttress his submission that supply of such incomplete document tantamounts to nonsupply thereof and therefore, vitiates the order of detention. Lastly, the verification of incamera statements allegedly done by S.D.P.O. is shown to this Court in order to demonstrate that those incamera statements or then verification thereof by S.D.P.O. has not been scrutinized by the respondent No.2 Detaining Authority personally and there is no subjective satisfaction in that respect. Support is being taken of judgment dated 01.02.2016 delivered by this Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.768 of 2015.

5. In addition he points out that petitioner has received two orders of detention signed in original and on same date. He states that there can be only one order of detention.

6. Learned APP has from records received by him, produced an envelope (seal) containing original incamera statements. He submits that perusal of order of detention reveals that in paragraph 4(E) those statements are looked into then other material has also been considered and thereafter conclusions are recorded in paragraph 5. He invites attention of the Court to the fact that if, the portion removed from copies of incamera statement supplied to the petitioner are retained, identity of witness will be immediately known and purpose of recording those statements secretly therefore, will be defeated. He contends that documents supplied contained necessary details in order to enable petitioner to understand the purpose thereof and hence, opportunity to effectively defend has not been denied. He further contends that entire history has been looked into and in the light of incamera statements, the other material as mentioned in proposal, subjective satisfaction has been reached. The chart of previous police reports contained in proposal is pressed into service to urge that last of offence mentioned therein i.e. 0334 of 2016 is committed on 09.06.2016 and investigation therein is