JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.:---The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Valmiki Tulshiram Dhanawat, has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune for detention of the detenu under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment 1996). 2. It is alleged that the detenu was dealing in illicit liquor. He was involved in following criminal cases registered against him under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act: On 31st July, 2001 information was received that the detenu and his hirelings were transporting illicit liquor in a car. Therefore, Head Constable along with the staff and panch witnesses carried out a raid and accosted white maruti van in front of Kusalkar bungalow at about 4.00 hrs. The detenu ran away from the maruti van leaving two plastic cans on the spot which contained 60 litres of illicit liquor which was seized by the police under the panchanama. Crime was registered under C.R. No. 6150/01 at Chatushringi Police Station for offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The detenu was arrested on 7-8-2001 and thereafter released on bail. In the said C.R. Criminal Case No. 707 of 2001 is pending trial. Again on 13-10-2001 acting on the information P.S.I. Bhalke along with the staff and panchas carried out the raid at about 13.10 hours in the square of Pune University in car bearing No. MHW-1259 when 35 litres of illicit liquor was found. The said illicit liquor was found in one plastic can in the car which was attached by the police under the panchanama. The crime came to be registered for offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act under C.R. No. 6171/2001. The detenu was arrested on the same day and thereafter released on bail on 14-10-2001 by the J.M.F.C. The charge-sheet was submitted on 9-11-2001 and the case is pending trial. Thereafter on 26-4-2002 on the basis of the information the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Yele along with staff and panch witnesses carried out raid in the open place in front of the detenue's house at Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Pashan Village, Pune at about 20-30 hours when the detenu was found in possession of a plastic can and two glasses smelling of liquor. The plastic can was containing five litres of illicit liquor. The plastic can was containing five litres of illicit liquor. The same were seized under the panchanama and the crime was registered for the offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act under C.R. No. 6046/2002. The detenu came to be arrested on the same day and was released on bail by the J.M.F.C. on 27-4-2002. In respect of the said seizure Criminal Case No. 45 of 2002 is pending trial. Lastly on 30th April, 2002 P.S.I. Galinde, P.I. Yeole and police staff received information at Chatushringi Police Station that the detenu along with three/four associates was moving in Lamantanda Vasti, Pashan with swords and sticks and inquiring menacingly with the public as to who had informed the police about his business of illicit liquor and to carry out raid on 26-4-2002 and threatening to chop off hands and legs of such persons. On receiving the said information the Police Inspector Galinde along with police staff went to the spot and found that many shops were closed, some were half open and very few vehicles or persons were seen on the road. The people were not ready to speak and were asking for police protection. When some of the shop keepers were taken into confidence they disclosed to the police that prior to the arrival of the police two-three goondas along with the detenu had threatened to cut off their hands and legs and, therefore, P.S.I. and police staff carried out raid on the detenu's house where they found two sharp edged sattoors and a plastic can containing five litres of illicit country liquor. At the time of the raid son of the detenu by name Sunil was present there. The sattoors and liquor were seized under panchanama and crime was registered against the detenu for offence under section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act at Chatushringi Police Station vide C.R. No. 3072 of 2002. The detenu came to be arrested on 9th June, 2002 at 16.00 hours and was released on bail by the J.M.F.C. on 10th June, 2002. 3. The detenu came to be arrested on 9th June, 2002 at 16.00 hours and was released on bail by the J.M.F.C. on 10th June, 2002. 3. Thereafter the police had recorded in-camera statements of two persons, the gist of which is as follows: Witness "A" had stated that on 2-4-2002 at about 19.00 hours when he was in his courtyard along with the members of his family, people from his locality were seen running helter skelter saying Valyadada had come. The residents started closing the doors of their houses. The detenu came there with sword and shouted why they were running and challenged them to come one by one he would tear them off as they were informing the police about his illicit liquor business. He abused and threatened the witness and gave him fist blows and kicked and pushed him down. Thereafter he pointed the sword on the stomach of the witness and threatened him of dire consequences if he opposed or informed the police about his illicit liquor business. The witness did not lodge any complaint due to the fear. 4. Witness "B", who is a resident of Lamantanda Vasti, Pashan, Pune narrated the incident which took place on 24-3-2002. On that day at about 5.00 hours in the morning when he was going to attend the nature's call towards the open ground he saw the detenu near his white maruti van unloading cans of illicit liquor. As the witness had seen him unloading cans of illicit liquor he was asked by the detenu as to whether he was keeping a watch on him and took out a sword from the van and pointing it at his stomach asked him if he gave information about his illicit liquor business to anybody and threatened him that in case police carried out raid he would cut off his head with the sword. The witness managed to escape from there by begging for his mercy. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid material the Detaining Authority has mentioned in paragraph 6 of the grounds that because of the huge amount of ill-gotten money he had earned out of such illegal activities, the detenu had hired bullies for protection of his business and had created reign of terror in the minds of common people and, therefore, people were afraid of him and were not coming forward to give information against him. In para 7 of the grounds of detention it is mentioned as follows: ".......You are also a bootlegging desperado and thereby have become a perpetual and potential danger to the health of people and safety and security of the society at large....." It is further stated that large number of people in the said localities are addicted to drinking illicit liquor and their families have been experiencing a sense of insecurity and carrying on their daily routine under constant shadow of fear and, therefore, even tempo of the society has been disturbed. Thereafter in paragraph 8 of the grounds it is stated as follows: "8. I have carefully gone through the material placed before me and I am subjectively satisfied that you are acting in a manner hazardous to the safety and security of the society and consequently prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. I am aware that you have availed bail and become a free person. In view of your tendencies and inclination reflected in the bootlegging offences committed by you as stated above, I am further satisfied that in the event of remaining at large, you are likely to revert to the similar activities which are hazardous to the society and prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future and that it is necessary to detain you under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) to prevent you from acting in such a prejudicial manner in future." 6. The aforesaid order of detention was served on the detenu on the same day and he was taken into detention. At present the detenu is in Yerwada Central Prison at Pune. The present petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of detention on various grounds. 7. Mr. Tripathi appearing for the petitioner argued two points before us. Firstly, he contended that the in-camera statements cannot be relied on by the Detaining Authority on the ground that the said statements were not verified by the Senior Police Officer not below the rank of A.C.P. as required by law. 7. Mr. Tripathi appearing for the petitioner argued two points before us. Firstly, he contended that the in-camera statements cannot be relied on by the Detaining Authority on the ground that the said statements were not verified by the Senior Police Officer not below the rank of A.C.P. as required by law. It is further contended that there is no statement of A.C.P. or his verification about the in-camera statements that the statements were read over to the witnesses and they affirmed them to be true and, therefore, the Detaining Authority had not applied his mind and consequently the order of detention is illegal and the same was mechanically passed without considering whether they were verified by the A.C.P. or not. 8. The said ground has been taken in paragraph 6(E) of the petition. Reply to the said ground is given in para 11 of the affidavit dated 5th October, 2002 of the Detaining Authority. According to the said reply the in-camera witnesses were produced before the Assistant Commissioner of Police and after enquiries made with the witnesses the A.C.P. was satisfied about the truth of the said statements. Thus from the reply of the Detaining Authority it appears that the said in-camera statements were verified by the A.C.P. as required by law. However, the grievance made by Mr. Tripathi is that the detenu was not supplied the copies of complete set of in-camera statements that is along with the verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and, therefore, his right of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was adversely affected and thus the order of detention is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he placed reliance on few judgments of this Court. 9. In this connection he relied firstly on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Shubhangi Sawant v. R.H. Mendonca)1, reported in 2001 All.M.R.(Cri.) 68. That was a case where the petitioner was given only the copies of in-camera statements, without verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Detaining Authority had taken into consideration the in-camera statements of two witnesses which were recorded by Senior Police Inspector and were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. However, the copies of the in-camera statements supplied to the detenu did not contain the verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Detaining Authority had taken into consideration the in-camera statements of two witnesses which were recorded by Senior Police Inspector and were verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. However, the copies of the in-camera statements supplied to the detenu did not contain the verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In the circumstances, this Court held that it had resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the order was vitiated. The said judgment was relied on and applied by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Sahai S.K. Shah, JJ.) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1649 of 2001 in the case of (Joginder Prakash Piwal v. M.N. Singh others)2, decided on 7-2-2002. In the said case also the copies of the in-camera statements of witnesses supplied to the detenu did not contain verification done by the Senior Police Inspector or the A.C.P. Consequently it was held that there was violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the detention order was vitiated. In this case also the detenu was supplied with the copies of the in-camera statements of two witnesses without verification done by the A.C.P. In the circumstances, the Detaining Authority could not have relied on the in-camera statements of two witnesses against the detenu. 10. The next contention raised on behalf of the detenu is that there was no material before the Detaining Authority to issue the detention order on the ground that there was danger to public health due to the activities of the detenu. This contention is raised on the basis of undisputed fact that the Detaining Authority had not relied on the C.A. report with regard to the contents of the illicit liquor or alcohol seized from the detenu on the four occasions. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Jahagirdar Tipnis, JJ.) delivered on 6th October, 1988 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 940 of 1988 in the case of (Pandu Shetty v. Commissioner of Police)3. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Jahagirdar Tipnis, JJ.) delivered on 6th October, 1988 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 940 of 1988 in the case of (Pandu Shetty v. Commissioner of Police)3. No doubt that was a case where the C.A. report was relied on by the Detaining Authority but the Court found that the C.A. report did not opine that the constituents of the liquor seized from the detenu were harmful to the health of a human being and, therefore, it was held that there was no justification for drawing the conclusion that the activities of the detenu as a bootlegger was causing or calculated to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. It was observed that unless such material was there before the Detaining Authority no such inference could have been legitimately drawn by the Detaining Authority. 11. Mr. Tripathi also relied on another judgment of the other Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Ashok Agarwal Moorthy, JJ.) delivered on 20th June, 1995 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1408 of 1995 in the case of (Smt. Shubhangi Jalgaonkar v. Shri Satish Sahney another)4. In that case, as in the present case, no report of the chemical analyser had been produced to show that the liquor with which the detenu was dealing was harmful to public life or health. Following the ratio of the decision of this Court in Pandu Shetty's case (supra) the Bench held that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the activities of the detenu were causing grave or widespread danger to life or public health was without any material on record. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of those two decisions and are of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the activities of the detenu had become perpetual and potential danger to the health of people is without any basis in the absence of C.A. report which was not relied on in the grounds of detention. On the contrary in the reply affidavit dated 5th October, 2002 it has been categorically stated that the report of the chemical analyser was not received by the sponsoring authority till the issuance of the order of detention and hence there was no question of furnishing a copy of the said report to the detenu. It is further stated that the Detaining Authority had not relied upon the chemical analyser's report for issuing the order of detention nor he has made a passing reference to the report while issuing the order of detention and, therefore, it was not a vital document of which copy ought to have been given to the detenu. Thus the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the activities of the detenu posed a perpetual and potential danger to the health of people is illusory and cannot sustain in law. Consequently the said ground also fails. 12. However, there is yet another ground on the basis of which the impugned order of detention can be sustained. As pointed out earlier there were four seizures made of the illicit liquor from the possession of the detenu on the basis of the information received by the police on different dates in respect of which four crimes were registered against him by Chatushrangi Police Station and the cases are pending for trial in the Court of the Judicial Magistrates. In the last crime registered against the detenu on 30th April 2002, information was received that the detenu, along with his three to four associates, was moving in the Lamantanda, Pashan with swords and sticks and inquiring menacingly with the public as to who had informed the police about his business of illicit liquor and asked them to carry out raid on 26-4-2002 and threatened to chop off hands and legs of such persons. On the said information when the Police Sub-Inspector along with police staff went to the spot he found that many shops were closed, some were half open and very few vehicles or persons were seen on the road. The people were not ready to speak about the detenu but were asking for police protection. On the said information when the Police Sub-Inspector along with police staff went to the spot he found that many shops were closed, some were half open and very few vehicles or persons were seen on the road. The people were not ready to speak about the detenu but were asking for police protection. It was only when the P.S.I. took some of the shop keepers into confidence, they told him that two to three minutes prior to the arrival of the police on the scene, the detenu had threatened to cut off their hands and legs. Therefore, P.S.I. carried out raid on the detenu's house and found two sharp edged sattoors and plastic can containing five litres of illicit liquor in the presence of his son by name Sunil. A C.R. was registered bearing No. 3072/02. The reference to this has been made in paragraph 5.5 of the grounds of detention. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority recorded in paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention has already been quoted above. 13. In our view, with the introduction of section 5-A it cannot be disputed that even if some of the grounds fail on account of being vague, non-existent, non-relevant or not connected with such person or is rendered invalid for any other reason, still the order cannot be deemed to be invalid or inoperative if the same can be supported on the remaining ground or grounds. The impugned order was passed under section 3(2) of the Act, which can be passed if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in case the detenu is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which is defined in section 2 of the Act. The relevant definition applicable to a bootlegger is contained in section 2(a)(ii) which is as follows: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.--- (a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means--- (i) .... .... .... .... The relevant definition applicable to a bootlegger is contained in section 2(a)(ii) which is as follows: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.--- (a) "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means--- (i) .... .... .... .... (ii) in the case of a bootlegger, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order." The explanation to the said definition given in Clause (a) is relevant which reads as follows: "Explanation.---For the purpose of this Clause (a), public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof, or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health." 14. As per the above explanation, the public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely in one of the two ways. If any of the activities of a bootlegger directly or indirectly is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health. Thus a bootlegger's activities may cause or pose danger either to the health of the public or to the security of the members of the public. If the liquor found from the possession of a bootlegger is shown as per the C.A. report to pose danger to the public health, the bootlegger can be detained under the provisions of this Act. He can also be detained under this Act in case his activities as a bootlegger are posing danger to the security of the public or creating feeling of insecurity among the members of the public without endangering the public health. 15. The judgment of this Court in Pandu Shetty's case (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr. Tripathi, also takes similar view. 15. The judgment of this Court in Pandu Shetty's case (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr. Tripathi, also takes similar view. In that case after holding that since that C.A. report did not find any ingredients in the seized liquor which was harmful to the health of human being it was observed that if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the activities of bootlegger shall cause alarm or feeling of insecurity among general public or any section thereof, he will be fully justified in passing an order of detention under the Act. It would be relevant to quote para 5 of the judgment of this Court in that case, which reads as under: "5. It is always open to a Detaining Authority to obtain an opinion on the character of the liquor seized. If in a given case the chemical analyser is satisfied that the liquor seized contains certain constitutes which are harmful to the health of a human being, then in that case an inference can be justifiably drawn that the activities of a bootlegger is causing or calculated to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. Unless such material is there before the Detaining Authority, no such inference can be legitimately drawn. However, as we have mentioned above, if the Detaining Authority is satisfied that the activities of a bootlegger cause alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof, he will be fully justified in passing an order of detention under the Act. On the facts of this case, however, we are of the opinion that the inference drawn by the Detaining Authority is not tenable." 16. After reading and analysing section 2 of the Act we are of the view that a bootlegger can be detained under the provisions of this Act not only in case he is dealing in liquor which, as per the C.A. report, is harmful to the public health, but also in case his activities as a bootlegger otherwise create a feeling of insecurity and danger among the members of the public. Paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention, which is quoted above, read with paragraph 5.5 and part of paragraph 7 of the grounds goes to show that the detenu had created terror and feeling of insecurity among the members of the locality due to his activities as a bootlegger. 17. Paragraph 8 of the grounds of detention, which is quoted above, read with paragraph 5.5 and part of paragraph 7 of the grounds goes to show that the detenu had created terror and feeling of insecurity among the members of the locality due to his activities as a bootlegger. 17. Mr. Tripathi, however, contends that in order to detain a person under the provisions of this Act as a bootlegger or for his activities as a bootlegger, it must be established in the first instance that he was a bootlegger as per the definition of bootlegger given in the Act. He further contends that without the C.A. report it cannot be said that the detenu was dealing in illicit liquor. We cannot dispute the first limb of his argument that in order to attract the provisions of this Act it would be necessary to show that the detenu was a bootlegger. However, we do not agree with the second limb of his argument that the fact that the detenu was a bootlegger can only be established on the basis of C.A. report which must state that the liquor in which he is dealing is illicit liquor. The definition of bootlegger is given in section 2(b) of the said Act. As per the said definition "bootlegger" means a person, who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules and Orders made thereunder. In our view, the Detaining Authority can arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a bootlegger from various facts and circumstances on record and need not depend necessarily on the report of the chemical analyser with regard to the liquor seized from his possession. For instance there were as many as four crimes registered against the detenu under the provision of section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. On all the four occasions the Police Officers were acting on prior information and they could successfully seize liquor from the possession of the detenu. For instance there were as many as four crimes registered against the detenu under the provision of section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. On all the four occasions the Police Officers were acting on prior information and they could successfully seize liquor from the possession of the detenu. On the first raid two cans of liquor were seized from a car; on the second occasion 35 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from his car; on the third occasion five litres of illicit liquor was recovered from plastic can from the open place in front of his house and on the last occasion five litres of country liquor was seized from his own house. The plastic cans and the glasses seized during the raids were smelling of alcohol. In the last raid which was carried out on 30th April, 2002, two sharp edged sattoors were recovered from the house of the detenu along with a plastic can containing five litres of illicit country liquor. That raid was carried out pursuant to the information that the detenu was moving around with his associates carrying swords and sticks and holding out threats of dire consequences of chopping off hands and legs of the persons who had informed the police about his activities. Thus the fact that the charge-sheets were filed in four cases against the detenu for seizure of cans of illicit liquors and glasses smelling of alcohol from his house, car and place in front of his house when the police were acting on the prior information that he was dealing in illicit liquor, could be the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of the definition of bootlegger given in the Act itself. The accused is not charge-sheeted under the Bombay Prohibition Act unless reliance is placed on the C.A. report to show that the accused was dealing in illicit liquor. 18. We are fortified in our opinion by the similar view taken by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Shah Kantharia, JJ.) in the judgment delivered on 14th June, 1983 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 119 of 1983 in the case of (Sakharam Patil v. Commissioner of Police)5. 18. We are fortified in our opinion by the similar view taken by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Shah Kantharia, JJ.) in the judgment delivered on 14th June, 1983 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 119 of 1983 in the case of (Sakharam Patil v. Commissioner of Police)5. That was also a case where the Detaining Authority had not placed reliance on the C.A. report and the contention was raised that without the C.A. report the Detaining Authority could not have formed subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a bootlegger. Repelling the said contention the Bench held that the matter could be considered in the light of the other material relied on by the authorities. Reliance was placed on the other materials like the panchanama of seizure which referred to the seized quantity of liquid as illicit liquor so also the seizure of implements of distillation. There was also seizure of boiler which is used for distilling liquor and three drums which were smelling of liquor which could form the material from which conclusion or inference could have been drawn that what was seized was prohibited liquor. In the said case the Bench had relied on earlier judgment of another Division Bench of this Court decided on 5th October, 1982 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 533 of 1982 wherein reference was made to decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 327 of 1982. In Sakharam Patil's case the Bench had quoted the observations made in Criminal Writ Petition No. 533 of 1982, which read as under: "It is not the law that for passing an order of preventing detention against a bootlegger the report of the chemical analyser is a must. The chemical analyser's report is one of the methods of establishing that what was seized was prohibited liquor. But it is that what was seized was prohibited liquor. But it is not the only method of evidence by which a fact of bootlegging can be established. There can be other modes of evidence including the detenu, his hirelings or the evidence of the panchas and the Police Officers conversant with the nature of liquor." 19. In this case also the charge-sheets have been filed not in one but in four cases in which according to the Police Officers what was found from the possession of the detenu was illicit liquor. In this case also the charge-sheets have been filed not in one but in four cases in which according to the Police Officers what was found from the possession of the detenu was illicit liquor. The information received by the Police Officers, panchanamas of seizure, the liquor and the glasses seized during the raids smelling of alcohol and cases registered against the detenu under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, in our view, do furnish material from which the Detaining Authority could have arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of the Act. 20. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Detaining Authority was not wrong in arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before him that the detenu was a bootlegger and that his activities as a bootlegger adversely affected or created a feeling of insecurity among the members of the public and, therefore, his detention was necessary under the provisions of this Act. 21. In the result this petition is dismissed and rule is discharged. On the application of Mr. Tripathi issue of certified copy is expedited. Petition dismissed. -----