JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who describes himself as nephew of the detenu Ram alias Kallu Maloji Walekar, has impugned the detention order dated 1st March, 1999 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), (hereinafter also referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act). The detention order and the grounds of detention also dated 1st March, 1999, were served on the detenu on 12-3-1999 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures "A" and "B" respectively to this writ petition. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. C.R. No. 73/98 under sections 392, 394, 34 I.P.C., registered on the basis of a complaint dated 9-5-1998 lodged by one Savilji Gala at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station and C.R. No. 229/98 under section 353 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 18-12-1998 filed by Police Naik Purshottam Rane at the same Police Station and the two in-camera statements of witnesses viz. witnesses A and B dated 14-12-1998 and 18-12-1998, respectively. 3. A perusal of para 5 of the grounds of detention would show that the detenu is detained as a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. Since Mr. U.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this we have not elaborately set out the recitals contained therein. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. U.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded a large number of grounds, running from grounds 7(A) to 7(F) but since he is only pressing before us a solitary ground namely that pleaded as ground 7(C) we are neither referring to nor dealing with the other grounds of challenge, raised in the petition. 5. Ground 7(c) in short is that while C.R. No. 93/98 was registered on 9-5-1998 the order of detention was passed on 1-3-1999 i.e. 10 months thereafter. 5. Ground 7(c) in short is that while C.R. No. 93/98 was registered on 9-5-1998 the order of detention was passed on 1-3-1999 i.e. 10 months thereafter. It has been averred in the said ground that on account of delay in the passing of the said order, the live-link has been snapped and the said ground has become old and stale. It has also been averred in the said ground that after the detenu availed of bail on 10-11-1998 in the said C.R. the in-camera statements were belatedly recorded on 16-12-1998. In the end it has been stated that hence the detention order is illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 656 (Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and others)1. He urged that a perusal of para 4 of the said decision shows that the detenu therein was detained as a bootlegger under section 2(b) of the M.P.D.A. Act, on the basis of five C.Rs. and five in-camera statements. He urged that the last C.R. was dated 26-2-1991 and between 20-3-1991 and 27-3-1991 five in-camera statements were recorded. He pointed out that the submission canvassed before the Supreme Court was delay in the issuance of the detention order. In para 13 of the judgment the Supreme Court laid down that between the last C.R. and the date of the detention order there was a gap of five months and eight days. Consequently he urged that the delay in the issuance of the detention order has to be computed from the date of the C.R. and not from the date of the last in-camera statement. According to him, since in the instant case, C.R. No. 39/98 is dated 9-5-1998 and the detention order is dated 1-3-1999 he was justified in canvassing that there was a delay of 10 months in issuing it. 7. Ground No. 7(C) has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority. The substance of the reply of the Detaining Authority therein is that the detention order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. 93/98 dated 9-5-1998 and C.R. No. 229/98 dated 18-10-1998 and two in-camera statements dated 14-12-1998 and 16-12-1998 respectively. 7. Ground No. 7(C) has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority. The substance of the reply of the Detaining Authority therein is that the detention order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. 93/98 dated 9-5-1998 and C.R. No. 229/98 dated 18-10-1998 and two in-camera statements dated 14-12-1998 and 16-12-1998 respectively. The Detaining Authority has averred that it was after the in-camera statements that the Sponsoring Authority submitted the proposal on 19-12-1998 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Worli Division who gave his endorsement thereon on 21-12-1998, forwarded the same to D.C.P. Zone III, who carefully went through all the papers and gave his endorsement and recommendation on 30-12-1999 and forwarded the same to the Additional Commissioner of Police. (C.R.) who gave his endorsement on 1-1-1999. He has averred that thereafter the papers were forwarded to Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., who forwarded the same to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecution for his opinion, who in turn on 21-1-1999 with his endorsement forwarded the papers and gave his opinion that it was a fit case for detention. Thereafter the papers were forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, (P) who gave his endorsement on 23-1-1999 and forwarded the papers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (P), who in turn gave his endorsement on 25-1-1999 and forwarded the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), who considered the proposal and forwarded it on 28-1-1999 to the Joint Commissioner of Police who in turn recommended the same on 29-1-1999. Thereafter the papers were produced before him (the Detaining Authority) who on 10-2-1999 went through the proposal and all the papers and gave his endorsement that it was a fit case for detention and formulated the draft grounds of detention and forwarded it to the Sponsoring Authority on 11-2-1999 for the purpose of fair typing and preparing translation of the documents in the language known to the detenu. On 18-2-1999 the documents were received by the Senior Inspector of Police P.C.B., C.I.D., who after checking the same put them before the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), who put his endorsement on 20-2-1999 and submitted the papers before him (the Detaining Authority) on 22-2-1999. He (the Detaining Authority) after perusing and checking all the papers passed the detention order on 1-3-1999. He (the Detaining Authority) after perusing and checking all the papers passed the detention order on 1-3-1999. In the said paragraph he (the Detaining Authority) has also stated that on account of a large number of holidays, the details of which have been given and as there were 92 ready detention matters before him for necessary orders the issuance of the order of detention was delayed. 8. We have perused ground 7(C) of the petition, para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority where the said ground has been replied and heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in Mr. Tripathi's submission. 9. As mentioned earlier, a perusal of para 5 of the grounds of detention shows that the detenu has been detained as a dangerous person under section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act. Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act reads thus: "2(b-1) dangerous person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets of the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959." 10. A perusal of section 2(b-1) would show that if a person either singly or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, he would be a dangerous person. The expression habitually commits means, commission more than once. The expression habitually commits means, commission more than once. Recently in the case of (Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat)2, reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. page 2197, wherein the detenu was detained as a dangerous person under section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (16 of 1985), wherein the detention of a dangerous person is identically worded as in section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A Act, and wherein the detention order was founded on one C.R. and two in-camera statements it was contended before the Supreme Court that the in-camera statements could not be taken into consideration and if they were excluded then only a solitary C.R. would remain and hence it could not be said that the detenu was habitually committing offences and therefore could not be detained as a dangerous person. A perusal of para 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court shows that the Supreme Court repelled the said contention and observed that the detention order was founded on three incidents (one C.R. and two in-camera statements). 11. Since in view of the ratio laid down in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. page 2197 (supra) in-camera statements of witnesses, provided they disclose offences falling under Chapters XVI or XVII of I.P.C. or Chapter V of Arms Act, can be taken into consideration for determining whether a person is a dangerous person under section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act, and Mr. Tripathi does not dispute that in-camera statements of witnesses A and B reveal commission of offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the I.P.C. by the detenu, the delay in the issuance of the detention order, in our view, would be computed from the date of the last in-camera statement and not from the date of the last C.R. as urged by Mr. Tripathi. 12. In our view the decision in Paturkar's case (supra) which has in relation to a bootlegger would have no application in the present case and instead Amanulla Khan's case (supra) would have. 13. For the said reasons we reject ground 7(c). 14. No other point was pressed before us by Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the result this petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----