Judgment :- A.S. Gadkar, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus inter alia challenging the detention order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 4th October, 2014 bearing No.4686/PCB/DET/2014 in exercise of its powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Maha. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment – 1996) (Amendment – 2009) ('M.P.D.A. Act' for short). By the said order the Petitioner has been directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was passed on 4th October, 2014 under the M.P.D.A. Act and the order of detention along with a copy of grounds of detention was furnished to the Petitioner on 4th October, 2014 itself and the Petitioner has been taken into custody for detention. The said detention order, apart from the previous criminal history of the detenu, is based on two crime reports and two in-camera statement of the witnesses. As stated earlier at the time of his detention, the Petitioner was served with the order of detention, the grounds of detention along with the documents relied on by the detaining authority. 2. At the time of filing of the Petition, though the order or detention has been challenged on various grounds, the Petitioner after seeking leave to amend the Petition by order dated 24th March, 2015 from this Court, added two more grounds by way of amendment. The Petitioner has taken various grounds while assailing the order of detention dated 4th October, 2014. However, in our opinion, the present Petition can be allowed on the ground which has been taken in paragraph No.7(n) of the Petition. In the said ground it is contended by the Petitioner that though in-camera statement of two witnesses have been served along with the documents, a copy of the verification effected by the Assistant Commissioner of Police has not been furnished to him thereby affecting the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation. 3. We have heard Mr. Udaynath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State and also perused the original record produced by the learned APP. 3. We have heard Mr. Udaynath Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State and also perused the original record produced by the learned APP. In response to the Petition, Mr. Sunil Jaikumar Sovitkar, Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai has filed an affidavit dated 18th March, 2015 for and on behalf of the Respondent No.2 thereby dealing with the points pertaining to the decision of the representation made by the Petitioner and on the point of legibility of the documents which have been served on the Petitioner with reference to the grounds taken in paragraph Nos.7(h) and 7(j) of the Petition. Mr. Satish C. Mathur, Commissioner of Police, Pune, the detaining authority has also filed a detailed affidavit dated 18th March, 2015 opposing the Petition. After the Petitioner amended the Petition and took grounds 7(m) and 7(n) as and by way of amendment, in response to the said amendment the Commissioner of Police, Pune has filed an additional affidavit dated 7th April, 2015 dealing with the said grounds. 4. In the grounds of detention dated 4th October, 2014 at paragraph No.8, the detaining authority with respect to the verification of the in-camera statements of Witnesses 'A' and 'B' by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune, has stated thus:- “The copies of documents placed before me are enclosed herewith except the particulars of the Witnesses in connection with grounds at paragraph No.5 of grounds of detention which cannot be furnished to you in the public interest for which I claim privilege as per section 8(2) of the said Act r/w Article 22(6) of the Constitution of India. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune has verified the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' and submitted a report to me. In the said report Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune has mentioned that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable. After perusing the said report I am satisfied that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable.” 5. After perusing the said report I am satisfied that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable.” 5. As stated above, the Petitioner in ground No.7(n) has taken a specific plea that the verification effected by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune with respect to the said two in-camera statements of the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' has not been furnished to him along with the documents in support of grounds of detention and therefore, the right of the detenu to make effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated. 6. In response to the aforesaid ground No.7(n) of the Petition, the Respondent No.1 i.e. the detaining authority in his affidavit dated 7th April, 2015 has stated that, in fact the original statements of Witnesses 'A' and 'B' clearly show that the verification was done by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police and the said statements were produced before him which were perused by him and in his grounds of detention at paragraph No.8 he has clearly stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune has verified the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' and submitted a report to him. That in the said report the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune has mentioned that the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable. He has further stated that after perusing the said report, he was satisfied that the facts enumerated in the statements and apprehension entertained by the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' are true and reasonable. He has further stated that because of non-furnishing of the said verification statements of the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police to the detenu, the right of the detenu to make effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is any way prejudiced. He has further stated that with a view to conceal the identity of the witnesses, the said verification statements were not parted with the detenu. 7. Mr. He has further stated that with a view to conceal the identity of the witnesses, the said verification statements were not parted with the detenu. 7. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of his contention submitted that because of non-furnishing of the verification statements of the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune, his right to make effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is affected. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Vijay Ramchandra Angre v. S.M. Shangari and others reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1974 and in the case of SubhangiTukaram Sawant v. R.H. Mendonca and others reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 68. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Angre (supra) after taking into consideration the various judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court in paragraph 7 has held thus: “7. Though from the original file we notice that the in-camera statements have been verified by the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, we are at a loss to know the reason for keeping it back from the detenu though the copies of the statements had been furnished to him. The reply affidavit does not explain the reason for not furnishing the copies of the verification of the said statements to the detenu along with the in-camera statements and the other documents. Following the view taken by the other Division Benches of this Court, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside on the said ground. It is a case of non-supply of documents relied on by the detaining authority which affects the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation.” 9. From the grounds supplied to the detenu it is apparent that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the in-camera statements of the Witnesses 'A' and 'B' recorded on 10th August, 2014 and 12th August, 2014 respectively. There is no dispute that the said in-camera statements were recorded by the Senior Inspector of Police, Swargate Police Station and the said in-camera statements were subsequently verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune on 11th September, 2014. There is no dispute that the said in-camera statements were recorded by the Senior Inspector of Police, Swargate Police Station and the said in-camera statements were subsequently verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Swargate Division, Pune on 11th September, 2014. A perusal of the original record discloses that the verification statements are handwritten and the Assistant Commissioner, Swargate Division, Pune City has signed below the same. However, we find from the record that the copies of in-camera statements supplied to the detenu do not contain verification made by the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police. In our considered opinion, this has resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India affecting the right of the Petitioner to make effective representation with the concerned authorities and vitiates the order of detention. 10. Accordingly we allow the present Writ Petition and pass the following order: i) The Petition is allowed; ii) The order of detention dated 4th October, 2014 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Pune, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The Petitioner - detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Writ Petition is disposed of.