Verification of in-camera statements by an officer rather than the Detaining Authority itself suffices under the law, maintaining procedural safeguards in preventive detention matters.

JUDGMENT:

RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J

1) By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Order of Detention dated 26^th December, 2024, being O. W. No. CRIME PCB/DET/NANDED CITY/SHILIMKAR/1041/ 2024 (Detention Order) passed by the Respondent No.2, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”) and of the Committal Order of even date whereby the Petitioner has been detained in the Akola District Prison, Akola. The Petitioner prays that, he be released and set at liberty.

2) By an Order dated 2^nd May 2025, this Court has issued Rule in the petition. The Respondent Authorities have filed their Affidavits-in-Reply, wherein they have opposed the Petition on various grounds.

3) Heard Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State. Perused the Affidavits-in-reply filed by the Respondents and the record before us.

4) Mr. Rishabh Vakharia, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Petition for challenging the Detention Order but has restricted his arguments to only one ground i.e. that the in-camera statements should be verified by the Detaining Authority itself. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statement of witness ‘A’ and witness ‘B’, have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sinhgad Road Division, Pune City. He submits that, the Detaining Authority, has only seen, the verification for both in-camera statements. He submits that, the in-camera statements should be personally verified by the Detaining Authority himself. In the alternative, he submits that, in-camera statements ought to be verified jointly by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Detaining Authority. He submits that, the Detaining Authority should have at least personally verified the in-camera statements by speaking/having a dialogue with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. That, the fact of the in- camera statements been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not mentioned in the Detention Order.

4.1) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.8510 of 2023, dated 4^th September, 2023 and whilst referring to Paragraph No.16 of the said Judgment submitted that, the Detaining Authority must satisfy the Court that, it acted in accordance with the law. That, while passing the Detention Order the requirements of the law have to be strictly observed and that, in the event there is a slightest breach in following the requirements of the law, this Court should not hesitate to strike down the Order of Detention. In short, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, in-camera statements ought to have been personally verified by the Detaining Authority. On this ground, he calls in question the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and submits that the same is vitiated.

5) Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State submits that, the Detention Order dated 26^th December, 2024 has in fact relied upon and referred to the in-camera statements in the Detention Order. That, both the in- camera statements have been enclosed with the grounds of Detention and provided to the Petitioner. That, the gist of the in-camera statements is stated in the Detention Order. That, the in-camera statements have been verified by the Assistant Com