JUDGMENT Mrs. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenu has impugned the detention order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by respondent no.1- Commissioner of Police, Amravati (City), detaining him under Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as MPDA Act]. 2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner - detenu on 21/5/2010. 3. Perusal of the detention order shows that it is based on three CRs. and two in-camera statements. The three C.R.S. are C.R. No.364 of 2009, CR. No.86 of 2010 and CR. No.128 of 2010. The CR.'s pertain to two different police stations. The details of the CRs. are mentioned in para no.5 of the grounds of detention which read as under- 1) P.S. Rajapeth Crime No.364/ 2009. u/s. 394. IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt while committing Robbery. On 02-12-2009 at about 22.15 Hrs. when complainant Shri. Rahul Panditarao Ingole, age 23 yrs. was shutting down his Maratha Vihar hotel, you along with your other accomplice arrived in front of the hotel on a scooty pep vehicle bearing registration number MH-27-Z-1474. You asked the complainant whom the Hero Honda vehicle belonged to ? And demanded petrol from the complainant. You also threatened complainant on the point of knife and cutoff the petrol pipe of the vehicle and took out petrol from the vehicle. The owner of the motor bike is Amol Nidhanrao Ganorkar who is a friend of the complainant. You broke down the glass of showcase of his hotel with the help of stones. You also tore off the seat cover of the vehicle of friend of complainant and broke down the furniture of the hotel. You also injured the friend of the complainant and ran away. On the complaint lodged by complainant, an offence vide C.R. No.364/2009. u/s. 394 of IPC was registered at Police Station Rajapeth. The information regarding the occurrence of an offence was given to all Police Stations on wireless that criminals have ran away alongwith the vehicle which bears registration No.MH-27-Z-1474. 2) P.S. Frezarpura Crime No.86/ 2010. U/ss.143. 336.504.506. IPC Creating unlawful assembly and threatens the public. On 14-03-2010 at about 13.45 Hrs. the complainant Prakash Vashtrao Gawande. age 53 yrs. The information regarding the occurrence of an offence was given to all Police Stations on wireless that criminals have ran away alongwith the vehicle which bears registration No.MH-27-Z-1474. 2) P.S. Frezarpura Crime No.86/ 2010. U/ss.143. 336.504.506. IPC Creating unlawful assembly and threatens the public. On 14-03-2010 at about 13.45 Hrs. the complainant Prakash Vashtrao Gawande. age 53 yrs. Police Inspector, P.S. Frezarpura received an information through phone from Control Room, Amravati City that without any reason you are creating panic in the minds of people of Prashant Nagar. You and. other accused formed an unlawful assembly holding stones in your hands demanding people to shut down shop and have created terror in the mind of the shops owners. All the shop-keepers were horribly frightened because of you and your unlawful activity and that no one came forward to give complaint against you. So on the complaint of Police Inspector Gawande an offence vide C.R. No.86/2010, U/ss.143, 336, 504, 506 of IPC was registered at Frezarpura Police Station. During investigation, the statements of the shop-keepers were recorded where they stated that you and other accused had gone to close down the market and due to your fear they did not lodge the complaint at the Police Station. You were absconding from the date of occurrence of crime. The criminal act of you has created huge panic in minds of people of Prashant Nagar and that nobody was willing to disclose the name of accused. The media had also taken cognizance of this event. You were arrested on 15-04-2010 at 13.57 Rrs. in the said crime. The case is pending investigation. 3) P.S. Frezarpur Crime No.128/ 2010. u/ss. 399. 402. IPC : Preparing to commit Dacoity and being a part of assembly. On 07-04-2010 at about 20.25 Hrs. to 21.15 Hrs. Police Sub-Inspector Pradeep Suryavanshi while on patrol in Prashant Nagar area saw that people are running in panic and shutting down their shops. When Police staff reached at the spot they found that accused Guddu Kattilwar & Subhash Mautakar along with three others were roaming in the market area with sword, iron rod and chilly powder in their hands with intention to commit dacoity. Two accused persons Guddu Kattilwat & Subhash Mautakar were arrested on the spot but other accused managed to flee away from the spot. Two accused persons Guddu Kattilwat & Subhash Mautakar were arrested on the spot but other accused managed to flee away from the spot. An offence was registered vide C.R. No. 128/2010, U/ss.399, 402 of IPC against 5 accused persons. During investigation it was disclosed that you along with Satish Kurotiya and Rajesh Tiwari were the other 3 accused person who managed to flee from the spot. Later on you were arrested on 1204-2010 at 21.50 Hrs.. The case is pending investigation. The detention order is also based on the statements of two in-camera witnesses. The details of which are as under- 7.1 Witness-A Witness 'A' in his In-camera statement has stated that he is a well known business man and resident of Saroj Colony Amravati. You were residing in the same locality. He knows you as a notorious criminal and doing nothing. You• are always surrounded by notorious criminals of the same age group. You also threatened the people of the same locality and the business man of the market voluntarily causing hurt to them. Approximately before 1-11/2 months at 08.30 p.m. you came towards him and said that ^^lkY;k] eknjpksn rq [kqi iSls dekor vkgs eyk nk: fi.;kl o ekÖ;k 'khdikf.k dfjrk eyk ‡ŒŒ@& :i;s gIrk ykxsy] rs iSls rqyk] eyk |kos ykxsy ukgh fnys rj eknjpksn ;kn jk[k] rqÖ;k xkaMhoj pkDdw ekjhy o rqÖ;k vkbZ cfg.khph [kcj ?ksbZy tj ekÖ;k fo:/n iksyhl Bk.;kr fjiksVZ fnyk rj ;kn j[k tls ckdh yksdkaps gky dsys rlsp rq>s i.k gky dfjy-** and pulled out knife and snatched forcibly Rs.500 by threatening. Due to your fear the witness did not lodge the complaint at .the Police Station. 7.2 Witness-B Witness' B' is in his In-camera statement has stated that he is a well known business man and resident of Saroj Colony, Amravati City. You were residing in the same locality. He knows you as a notorious criminal. On 14-03-2010 in the afternoon at 13.45 Hrs. you arrived in the market area along with other criminals and started pelting stones at the shops and also abused the shop keeper of the market. The persons who have not acceded to your illegal demands, you have caused serious damages to their shops. It has created tremendous terror in the mind of the people and they fear to carry on their daily vacations. The persons who have not acceded to your illegal demands, you have caused serious damages to their shops. It has created tremendous terror in the mind of the people and they fear to carry on their daily vacations. Approximately before 2 months when witness was in his shop you along with your 2-3 associates came in the shop and said that ^^dk ! cs ! xkaMw lkY;k QksdfuP;k tkLr ektyk dk; \ iS'kkph pjch p<yh dk; \ [kwi iSls dekor vkgs- lkY;k rq eyk vksy[kr ukgh dk;\ eh bFkyk nknk vkgs- eyk gRI;kps iSls ykxsy eh R;kyk EgVys dh d’kk ckcrps rqyk iSls |kos yxk.kkr R;ko:u R;ku EgVys dh] eyk rqÖ;k ckcr lxy ekfgr vkgs- rq dk; djr vkgs \ rq dqBqu iSls dekor vkgs \** On this you pulled out knife and snatched forcibly 900 Rs. from his pocket of shirt and at the time of returning back showing knife said that ^^lkY;k ekÖ;k fo:/n Bk.;kr rØkj fnyh rj rqyk ftok.ks ek:u Vkdhu ek>s g;k ,fj;kr Hkjiqj [kcjh yksd vkgsr eyk loZ ekfgr iMrs-**- Due to your fear the witness did not lodge the complaint at the Police Station. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - detenu and learned APP for the State. We have perused the grounds of detention and the reply filed by the Detaining Authority respondent no.1. Although in the petition a large number of grounds are pleaded, running from Ground Nos. A to H, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed before us only three grounds i.e. Grounds - B, F and H. In Grounds-B and F, it is contended that the activities were not such as to cause any impact on the general member of the community and disturb even tempo of the society i.e. the activities were not such as to disturb public order and there was nothing before the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that there was any danger to public Order. Ground H is as under – H) Detaining authority failed to verify the true statement recorded by in camera from anonymous persons whose name were not disclosed to the petitioner whose spoke about the activity of petitioner which could amount to danger to public at large. Detaining authority failing to verify whether the incident disclosed by the witnesses are true or not. On this ground also order of detention cannot be sustained." 5. Detaining authority failing to verify whether the incident disclosed by the witnesses are true or not. On this ground also order of detention cannot be sustained." 5. We have perused the grounds raised and the affidavit of the detaining authority rebutting them. In the return the detaining authority has emphatically stated that the papers before him showed that the petitioner was repeatedly engaged in activities which had an impact on general members of the community and disturbed the even tempo of society and as such his activities affected public order adversely or are such as to be likely to affect the maintenance of public Order adversely. We would like to take up the first two grounds together as they both deal with the issue of public order. From the statements of both the in-camera witnesses - A and B - we find that the petitioner is a notorious criminal residing in the same locality and he along with his associates,. armed with deadly weapons collected money from the businessmen in that area and threatened them with dire consequences, if they refused to pay. From the statement of in-camera witness 'A', it is seen that the petitioner went to this witness and demanded Rs.500/- as 'Hapta'. The petitioner threatened this witness that if the amount was not paid he would assault him with a knife and also threatened him with dire consequences in relation to the mother and sister of the witness. The Statement of in-camera witness 'B' is on similar lines as that of witness 'A'. From the statements of both these witnesses. it is seen that the petitioner alongwith his associates used to collect money at the point of deadly weapon like knife from businessmen by giving threats of serious assault and due to fear of the petitioner no one dared to inform the police. Mr. Mirza, the learned APP placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan Vs. R. H. Mendonca and ors., reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1070. In the said case the activities of the detenu were similar to the activities of the present petitioner i.e. extorting money from businessmen at the point of deadly weapon after giving them threats. R. H. Mendonca and ors., reported in 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1070. In the said case the activities of the detenu were similar to the activities of the present petitioner i.e. extorting money from businessmen at the point of deadly weapon after giving them threats. The Supreme Court observed that the act of the detenu undoubtedly affected the even tempo of life of society and therefore, such activities cannot be said to be mere disturbance of law and order and such activities clearly fall within the realm of public order. 6. It is the degree of disturbance and its impact upon the even tempo of life of the society or the people of a locality which determines whether the disturbance caused by such activity amounts only to a breach of "law and order" or it amounts to breach of "public order". Looking to the nature of the activities of the detenu and the extent and reach of his activities, we find that they are of such a nature that they travel beyond the capacity of the ordinary law to deal with the detenu or to prevent his subversive activities affecting the community at large or a large section of society. The activities of the detenu are clearly such as to affect the maintenance of public Order. 7. In addition to the in-camera statements, the detaining authority has also relied on three C. Rs. to issue the order of detention. If the facts of C.R. No.86 of 2010 and C.R. No.128 of 2010, which are reproduced above by us, are considered, it is noticed that the detenu along with his associates went to market area. All the shopkeepers were terribly frightened as the activities of the detenu were such that they created terror and panic in the minds of all the shopkeepers. From the facts relating to C.R. No.86 of 2010, it is seen that people were so terrified that they were not willing to lodge an FIR, hence, the police i.e. P.I. Gawande had to eventually lodge an FIR in relation to this incident. 8. In C.R. No.128 of 2010, information was received by the police that people were running in a state of panic in Prashant Nagar area and shutting down their shops. When police reached the spot they saw the detenu and his associates roaming in the market area with deadly weapons like sword and iron rod. 8. In C.R. No.128 of 2010, information was received by the police that people were running in a state of panic in Prashant Nagar area and shutting down their shops. When police reached the spot they saw the detenu and his associates roaming in the market area with deadly weapons like sword and iron rod. This incident is also such that it affects the even tempo of society and the activity is clearly prejudicial to public Order. 9. Similar facts were found in the case of Rupesh Ram Thakur Vs. Shri. S. Chakravarty and ors., reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1132, wherein this Court has observed as under "20. The above referred incidents coupled with the effect of the activities of the detenu which had upset the even tempo of life in the locality whenever and wherever the incident involving the detenu had occurred and further reluctance on the part of the members of the public to help the victims and come forward to lodge complaint clearly disclosed the creation of panic and fear in the minds of the members of the public as a result of the criminal acts on the part of the detenu and all those facts clearly reveal that the acts on the part of the detenu were clearly affecting the public order and they were not merely law and order problem. The incidents narrated obviously relate to the activities sufficient to cause breach of public order and being so the challenge to the detention order is devoid of substance." Thus, we find no merit in the contention that in the present case the activities of the detenu were not such as to adversely affect public Order. We find that in fact there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to reach the conclusion that the activities of the detenu were affecting public Order. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter argued ground (H) i.e. the detaining .authority failed to verify whether the incidents mentioned by the in-camera witnesses are true or not. It is further submitted that the statements were recorded in-camera of anonymous persons whose name were not disclosed to the petitioner. As far as the ground that the detaining authority has not personally verified the statements of the two in-camera statements is concerned, the law does not visualize that the detaining authority should himself verify the statement of the in-camera witnesses. As far as the ground that the detaining authority has not personally verified the statements of the two in-camera statements is concerned, the law does not visualize that the detaining authority should himself verify the statement of the in-camera witnesses. In the present case, Mr. Mirza, the learned APP has made available to us the relevant files and we find there from that the Assistant Commissioner of Police Frezarpura Division has verified the aforesaid statements made by the witnesses A and B. Hence, we cannot subscribe to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. We may also refer to the observation of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Kailas Laxman Joshi Vs. B. Akash Commissioner of Police, Thane, reported in 1995 Cri. L.J. 231 wherein it is observed as under- "Therefore in view of the clear provisions of the statue the detaining authority is entitled to and justified to rely upon the material of the nature viz. As contained in the in-camera statements of the witnesses. The Court was informed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that when such statements are recorded keeping the identify of the witnesses confidential or secret, the senior officer in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is a Gazetted Officer also verifies and ascertains the correctness or otherwise of such statements. " Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Segar @ Sekar K. Nadar V s. Shri. R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police and Ors. reported in 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1768. 12. In the case of Smt. Zebunnisa Abdul Majid Vs. M. N. Singh and ors., reported in 2001 Cri. L.J. 2759 this court has also held that the detaining authority need not aver in grounds about truthfulness of in-camera statements of the witnesses. Thus, when the in-camera statements have been verified by an ACP, it is not necessary for the Detaining Authority to mention this aspect in the grounds of detention. It is obvious that the grounds of detention need only state, the grounds on which the detenu is detained and the Detaining Authority need not give his reaction or state his awareness about each and every circumstance. 13. It is obvious that the grounds of detention need only state, the grounds on which the detenu is detained and the Detaining Authority need not give his reaction or state his awareness about each and every circumstance. 13. From ground H, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the in-camera statements are of anonymous persons whose names were not disclosed to the petitioner. Based on this, he contended that no material particulars were supplied to the detenu, due to which he was unable to make an effective representation. As far as the disclosure of the names of witnesses is concerned. the Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Mah., reported in AIR 1973 SC 630 in relation to in-camera statements has observed thus "9......... If the show-cause notice were to furnish to the proposed extern concrete data like specific dates of incidents or the names of persons involved in those incidents, it would be easy enough to fix the identity of those who out of fear of injury to their person or property are unwilling to depose in public. There is a brand of lawless element in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evidence. And legal evidence is impossible to obtain, because out of fear of reprisals witnesses are unwilling to depose in public. That explains why Section 59 of the Act imposes but a limited obligation on the authorities to inform the proposed externee "of the general nature of the material allegations against him"." Thereafter, the Supreme Court has further observed- "The petitioner is entitled to know the material allegations against him and the general nature of those allegations. He is not entitled to be informed of specific particulars relating to the material allegations.” It was further observed that it is because of this that only a limited obligation is imposed on the authority to in from the person of the general nature of the material allegations against him. Hence, it is clear that though the detenu is entitled to know the general nature of the material allegations against him, is not entitled to be informed the specific particulars relating to the material allegations. Thus we find on merit in these contentions. 14. Hence, it is clear that though the detenu is entitled to know the general nature of the material allegations against him, is not entitled to be informed the specific particulars relating to the material allegations. Thus we find on merit in these contentions. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out for quashing the order detention Rule is discharged. Ordered accordingly.