JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Miss Kamat, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner is the detenu himself. He detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.D.A. Act"). The detention order is dated 20-7-2001. The grounds of detention are of the same date and they were served upon him on the same day along with the documents. 3. The detention has been challenged by the petitioner on numerous grounds. During the course of arguments Mr. Deshpande raised now point viz. not supplying accurate and correct translation or the documents on which the detention order was based. He wanted to amend the petition to include this ground. We told him to give us comparative table as to which portion in the original statement is not translated in the Hindi translation given to him. Since in our opinion this ground was raised on the basis of the documents supplied and the documents forming part of the record with the Detaining Authority, we did not think it necessary to get any affidavit in reply from the respondents. The learned A.P.P. for the State also showed her willingness to make her submission in reply to the aforesaid ground from the comparative table given itself. 4. The main ground of attack is in paragraphs (v) and (vi) of this petition. Further in support of this ground Mr. Deshpande placed reliance on the ground of detention paragraph 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(viii), all of which related to C.R. No. 98/2001. Advancing his submission in this regard Mr. Deshpande contended that in para 4(b)(ii) the Detaining Authority has stated:--- "You took out razer from your hip pocket and gave blow of razer on the neck of Shri Muktar Ahmad in order to kill him. Due to assault Shri Muktar Ahmed sustained serious bleeding injury. Advancing his submission in this regard Mr. Deshpande contended that in para 4(b)(ii) the Detaining Authority has stated:--- "You took out razer from your hip pocket and gave blow of razer on the neck of Shri Muktar Ahmad in order to kill him. Due to assault Shri Muktar Ahmed sustained serious bleeding injury. Your associate Sameer Shaikh tried to hold Shri Muktar Ahmed but he escape from your clutches and ran away in order to save his life." Our attention was also drawn to para 4(b)(v) wherein the Detaining Authority has stated:--- "On 13-4-2001 you and your associate Sameer Husain Shaikh were arrested in this case during interrogation you admitted having committed this offence along with your said associates." Further in para 4(b)(vi) the Detaining Authority has stated:--- "On 20-4-2001 an identification parade was held by S.E.O. Smt. Salma Salim Almelkar at Thane Central Prison. Complainant Shri Muktar Ahmed Shaikh identified you and your associates Sameer Mansoor Shaikh as the same persons who assaulted him." 5. Mr. Deshpande contended that all the aforesaid statements of the Detaining Authority are not only contrary to the record but they are totally false and misleading. He pointed out that the F.I.R. that was lodged by the complainant Shri Muktar Ahmed Shaikh did not contain any name of assailants and the assailants were stated to be unknown. The complainant Shri Muktar Shaikh gave description only of the assailant and not the name at all. Further in the identification parade the complainant did not identify the detenu as the person inflicting blow of the razor. 6. Mr. Deshpande therefore contended that furnishing of the above information by the sponsoring authority to the Detaining Authority for the purpose of detaining the petitioner was, firstly, illegal and, secondly it was nothing but a total misrepresentation of facts and misleading the Detaining Authority and contrary to the record. He contended that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority on the basis of this misrepresentation and the misleading facts cannot be said to be proper, justified and legal. 7. When confronted with this, the learned A.P.P. Ms. He contended that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority on the basis of this misrepresentation and the misleading facts cannot be said to be proper, justified and legal. 7. When confronted with this, the learned A.P.P. Ms. Kamat had to concede that the F.I.R. was in respect of three unknown assailants and the names of none of them were given in the F.I.R. She also admitted that only description of the assailants was given and the detenu's name no where figured in the F.I.R. Further she has to concede that in the identification parade this detenu was not identified as the person who inflicted blow of razor on the neck of complainant Shri Aktar Shaikh and that role in the identification parade was attributed by the complainant to some other accused. 8. However, the learned A.P.P. tried to justify the detention order on the grounds that even if the statements in paragraph 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(viii) are not supported by record and they contrary to the record, the detention order cannot be quashed because there is one more C.R. and two in-camera statements against the detenu and the detention order can be justified because there is no challenge to the remaining C.R. and two in-camera statements. She relied upon two authorities of this Court and also tried to justify the detention order on the basis of section 5-A of the M.P.D.A. Act. 9. Miss Kamat the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1997 All.M.R.(Cri.) 403 (Vinod @ Vinu Bhupat K. Lakhoon v. Satish Sahney and others)1. She also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 1723 (Jafar Ahmed v. M.N. Singh)2. 10. In the first case of Vinod Bhupat v. Satish Sahney there were two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements against the detenu and the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioner in that case had created terror in the minds of peace loving and law abiding citizens of the locality and hence his detention was warranted. 11. What was urged by the detenu in that case was that even if two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements are accepted on their face value, it would be a case of breach of law and order and not public order and, therefore, the detention was liable to be set aside. 12. 11. What was urged by the detenu in that case was that even if two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements are accepted on their face value, it would be a case of breach of law and order and not public order and, therefore, the detention was liable to be set aside. 12. In the other case of Jafar Ahmed v. M.N. Singh also the similar question arose. In that case also contention on behalf of the detenu was that C.R. No. 102 of 2001 only disclose a breach of law and order and do not show that the detenu was committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in terms of section 2 of the M.P.D.A. Act. 13. Both the aforesaid grounds in the aforesaid petitions were rejected by this Court after going through the allegations of the detenu and in-camera statements. The question involved in the case before us is not whether the particular offence creates law and order problem or whether it is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The question is, whether the material that was placed before the Detaining Authority for coming to the conclusion about the need of detention of the detenu was true, correct and supported by the record and, whether it was misleading statements and contrary to the record. Admittedly, all the allegations against the detenu with reference to C.R. No. 98/2002 contained in para 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(viii) are contrary to record that is to say what is reproduced above from those paragraphs regarding the role of the detenu in the assault. Therefore, two cases cited by Miss Kamat have not application to the present case. They are totally on different footing and no question of subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was ever raised in those two petitions. 14. The learned A.P.P. has tried to rely upon section 5-A of the M.P.D.A. Act which reads as under:--- "5-A. Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds. 14. The learned A.P.P. has tried to rely upon section 5-A of the M.P.D.A. Act which reads as under:--- "5-A. Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds. Such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such ground; and accordingly--- (a) Such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because on or some of the grounds is or are--- (i) Vague, (ii) Non-existent, (iii) Not-relevant, (iv) Not connected or nor proximately connected with such person, or, (v) Invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the State Government or an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 making such order would have been satisfied as provided in section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention; (b) The State Government or such officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section 3 after being satisfied as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds." On the basis of section 5-A(a) that such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are:- (i) Vague, (ii) Non-existent, (iii) Not-relevant, (iv) Not connected or nor proximately connected with such person. 15. The question that is raised by the detenu here is not that the grounds are vague or not existing, not relevant or not connected. The question that is raised by him is that the sponsoring authority made misleading, incorrect and false statements and, as a result of which the Detaining Authority has wrongly came to the conclusion about the necessity of detention of the detenu. 16. Subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is the result and outcome of all the materials placed before it. From perusal of two C.R. and two in-camera statements, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective satisfaction on the facts of C.R. No. 98 of 2001. 16. Subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is the result and outcome of all the materials placed before it. From perusal of two C.R. and two in-camera statements, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective satisfaction on the facts of C.R. No. 98 of 2001. The other C.R. No. 49 of 2001 is for offences under section 324 read with section 34 of I.P.C. in which the blows with chopper and iron rod were given by the co-accused of the detenu who is only alleged to have been armed with chopper and handed over chopper to his associate Sajid who gave the blow with chopper on the head of the complainant. The facts of this C.R. could not be said to have influenced the Detaining Authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction. The two in-camera statements also could not have influenced the Detaining Authority as the facts stated therein are unverified, moreover, they do not appear to be serious enough to affect public order. 17. Admittedly, the material furnished by the sponsoring authority to the Detaining Authority in C.R. No. 98 of 2001 was incorrect and contrary to the record. Clearly, the Detaining Authority was misled by this information in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and passing order of detention. 18. Attributing the role of inflicting blow of razor to Aktar and attributing that he admitted commission of offence during investigation and contending that he was identified in identification parade as the person who inflicted the blow on the complainant are all statements contradictory to the record and are misleading statements. As stated above the subjective satisfaction is the cumulative effect of appreciation of all the facts placed before the Detaining Authority. The record in C.R. No. 98/2001 is contrary to what is stated in paragraphs 4(b)(ii) to 4(b)(viii) and it is a case of misrepresentation of facts which has resulted in prejudice to the detenu. The other C.R. No. 49/2001 and the two in-camera statements are clearly not serious enough to have led the Detaining Authority to its subjective satisfaction. The detention order cannot be sustained at all. This petition has, therefore, to be allowed. 19. This is not only the case of affecting subjective satisfaction but it is also a case of total non-application of mind by Detaining Authority. The detention order cannot be sustained at all. This petition has, therefore, to be allowed. 19. This is not only the case of affecting subjective satisfaction but it is also a case of total non-application of mind by Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority was furnished with the copy of F.I.R. of C.R. No. 98 of 2002 and the identification parade memo. A perusal of the F.I.R. and identification parade memo would have clarified the position. It would have shown that the detenu was not at all named in the F.I.R. nor any role attributed to him for inflicting blow of razor and perusal of identification parade memo would have revealed that the detenu is not identified as the assailant of the complainant with razor. However, in the grounds of detention the Detaining Authority has made positive averments in that regard which clearly shows that the Detaining Authority has not cared to carefully go through the documents and that too vital document F.I.R. This is, therefore, a case of total non-application of mind and hence the detention order is not sustained. 20. Mr. Deshpande, raised contention regarding not furnishing exact translation of document to him. The part that is not translated is totally trivial and does not affect the right of the detenu to make effective representation. Therefore, we are not deciding this petition on this ground the detention order is quashed on the grounds stated above viz. non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. : ORDER: The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Detention is quashed. The petitioner/detenu be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. On July 1, 2002 the matter is taken on board at the instance of learned A.P.P. for speaking to the minutes with reference to our order dated 24th June, 2002. By consent it is agreed that on page 10 para 16 the last lines should be substituted as under: "The two in-camera statements also could not have influenced the Detaining Authority as the facts stated therein do not appear to be serious enough to affect public order." Order be corrected accordingly. Petition allowed. -----