JUDGMENT - D.G. Deshpande, J.:---Heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents. Petitioner is the brother of detenu and the name of detenu is one Sachin Jadhav. Order of detention in this case is under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. It is dated 14-1-2002. The grounds of detention are of the same date. 2. In the petition, the detention order is challenged on different grounds from Ground A to Ground J. However, Mr. Tripathi restricted his submissions to Grounds B C jointly and then Grounds E, F, H and I. So far as Grounds B C are concerned, it was contended by Mr. Tripathi that though the detention order is dated 14-1-2002, the set of documents to be served upon the detenu was not ready and not prepared till 24-1-2002 and, therefore, the detenu could not make effective representation within five days as provided by law to the State Government because the period of five days for making representation has already expired. He contended that the detenu was served with the detention order on 24-1-2002 and, since the set was not ready till then, the detenu could make representation because period of five days has expired. In support of his contention Mr. Tripathi drew our attention to Annexure 'C' and 'D' of the petition, which are the copies of list of documents and the application for bail given to the detenu. These documents are from the compilation of documents given to the detenu. On these two documents the date is put as 24-1-2002 and signed by somebody-else on behalf of Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. Therefore according to Mr. Tripathi, when the compilation given to detenu, on all the documents the date is put as 24-1-2002. His contention is that, the documents were prepared on 24-1-2002 itself and, therefore, because of this delay the petitioner has lost his right to make his representation to the State Government. 3. Therefore according to Mr. Tripathi, when the compilation given to detenu, on all the documents the date is put as 24-1-2002. His contention is that, the documents were prepared on 24-1-2002 itself and, therefore, because of this delay the petitioner has lost his right to make his representation to the State Government. 3. As against this, learned A.P.P. drew our attention to the affidavits in reply of the sponsoring authority and the Detaining Authority in which they have stated that though the detention order was ready on 14-1-2002 and the copy of the entire set of documents sent to the Government immediately on the next day and the copy of the detenu was also prepared, but the detenu could not be located at his residence in spite of all the efforts being made in the regard, particulars of which have been given by the sponsoring authority in its affidavit page 72, para 4. And ultimately when confidential information was received that the detenu was likely to visit Kurla Court, a watch was kept on him and he was apprehended and on that day i.e. on 24-1-2002 papers were given to him and the date that is mentioned in the compilation was 24-1-2002 because it was served upon him on 24-1-2002. 4. When the Detaining Authority as well as sponsoring authority have made a statement on oath that the copies of the compilation and the proposal was sent to the Government immediately on the next day along with set of compilation, we do not find any reason to infer that the set to be given to the detenu was not ready on 14-1-2002 itself. The explanation given by the authorities that because the detenu was apprehended on 24-1-2002 and the date was put on the document as 24-1-2002 is satisfactory explanation and, therefore, no benefit can be given to the detenu in that regard. Since the detenu could not be served with the detention order in spite of the best efforts, the question of exercising his right to make representation does not arise. We do not find any substance in this ground. 5. The second ground that was raised by the detenu is Ground E and, according to him, the Detaining Authority has nowhere given the names of associates of the detenu who are alleged to have taken part in the incidents which are covered by two in-camera statements. We do not find any substance in this ground. 5. The second ground that was raised by the detenu is Ground E and, according to him, the Detaining Authority has nowhere given the names of associates of the detenu who are alleged to have taken part in the incidents which are covered by two in-camera statements. Our attention in this regard was drawn by Mr. Tripathi to para 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of the grounds of detention. Para 4(b)(i) refers to statement of witness 'A' and para 4(b)(ii) refers to statement of witness 'B'. In his statement witness 'A' has stated :- "that in the second week of September 2001 one day, at about 14.00 hours you and your two unknown associates (stress added) approached the construction site of witness." In the statement of witness 'B' as referred in para 4(b)(ii) the witness has stated :- "that in the third week of September 2001, one day, at about 17.00 hours, the witness was present in his shop, when you and your two unknown associates (stress added) barged into his shop." 6. When the persons giving statements to the police as witnesses A and B that they themselves did not know about the names of the associates of detenu, then we fail to understand from where the detenu expects that he should have been furnished with the names of those associates. Mr. Tripathi tried to contend that the police should have right to verify this aspect and ascertain the names of those associates. In our opinion that would amount to registering of the offence and making investigation which would frustrate the purpose of recording in-camera statements and keeping secrecy about the names of witnesses. 7. Third ground that was raised by Mr. Tripathi is that the copy of application preferred by the detenu for bail along with its translation in Marathi was given to the detenu, but though the translation given him is exactly correct and there is no dispute raised by the detenu in that regard, the order of bail passed by Magistrate on the said application is illegible. It could not be read. Some portion is cut while giving the copy and, therefore, the detenu was not in position to compare the translation with the original. 8. The detenu in this petition has filed the copy of the application at Annexure 'D' pages 26 and 27. It could not be read. Some portion is cut while giving the copy and, therefore, the detenu was not in position to compare the translation with the original. 8. The detenu in this petition has filed the copy of the application at Annexure 'D' pages 26 and 27. The order of the Magistrate granting bail is passed on the next page i.e. on page 27 and, though it is true that we could not read couple of words, the fact that the detenu was granted bail and the Magistrate did not have any reason to reject the bail, can be read and understood. However, the most important aspect of the matter was that the detenu has no grievance about the translation given to him, which means that the translation of the order passed by the Magistrate given to him is exactly as per the original and in that situation we fail to understand what actually the grievance of the detenu. It is true that the copies of the documents are required to be given to the detenu. But in this case the copies of the bail application and order in fact given along with its true and correct translation. Mr. Tripathi relied upon judgment of this Court reported in 1983 Cri.L.J. 1246 (Moosa Velliat v. The Asstt. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra)1. However in that case the copies of documents which were placed before the Detaining Authority were not supplied to the detenu along with translated version and, therefore, it was held that the right of the detenu to make effective representation was affected. In the instant case, the documents i.e. the bail application and the order passed there upon was furnished to the detenu, as it was in English i.e. the original, as true, correct and proper translation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the detenu was misled by those couple of illegible words in the original order particularly when he has no grievance about the translation. Therefore, this ground has also to be rejected. 9. The next contention raised by Mr. Tripathi was that regarding two in-camera statements the Detaining Authority has claimed privilege about non-disclosure of the names of those persons i.e. witnesses A and B. According to Mr. Tripathi, merely because Constitution grants such privilege of keeping the names secret, that privilege cannot claimed and there has to be some substantial material to claim the privilege. Tripathi was that regarding two in-camera statements the Detaining Authority has claimed privilege about non-disclosure of the names of those persons i.e. witnesses A and B. According to Mr. Tripathi, merely because Constitution grants such privilege of keeping the names secret, that privilege cannot claimed and there has to be some substantial material to claim the privilege. We fail to understand the submission of Mr. Tripathi. If the witnesses A and B have expressed apprehension in their statements that they are afraid of the detenu and the authority recording statements have given assurance that their names would not be disclosed at any time due to fear and vengeance by the hands of the detenu then nothing more required to claim its privilege. This ground has also no substance and it is rejected. 10. The last ground that was raised by Mr. Tripathi was that the in-camera statements as per the affidavit of Detaining Authority were verified by A.C.P. and Sr. P.I. But actually they were verified by A.C.P. and not by Sr. P.I. and this has resulted in prejudice to the detenu. We do not find any substance in this argument also. What is required is that some Senior Police Officer should verify the in-camera statement. This has been done in the instant case. The statements of A and B are verified by A.C.P. However, reliance placed by Mr. Tripathi upon certain averments in para 4(b) to the effect. "On going through the proposal and finding the verifications done by the Sr. P.I. and the Division A.C.P. About this the Detaining Authority has given explanation and considering the fact that the statements were verified by A.C.P. and about in the ground also. Hence the order :-- :ORDER: The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----