JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri Pankaj Navlani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.R. Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The petitioner – Sau. Chandabai w/o Dadarao Kale, challenges the preventive detention of her son Dashrath s/o Dadarao Kale, aged about 45 years by Respondent No. 3 – Commissioner of Police, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Act). It is not in dispute that the said order has been duly approved by the State Government. The detention is for a period of one year. The approval order of the State Government under Section 3(3) is dated 09.11.2015. We need not go into other details of the matter as Shri Navlani, learned counsel has pointed out that four in-camera statements looked into by Respondent No. 3 do not support the subjective satisfaction that the witnesses are not ready and willing to come forward to depose. The order of Respondent No. 3 dated 07.11.2015 does not contain any application of mind in this respect. 3. The offences looked into are stale and, therefore, lack live link with the order of detention. Inviting attention to Crime No. 6026 of 2015, he submits that it is under Section 65(E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and still under investigation. Only Indian Penal Code offence in 2015 is vide Crime No. 280 of 2005 under Sections 143, 147, 506(b) on 20.07.2015 and it is still pending. The other offences are all old. The instance of non-cognisable cases are all pertaining to the year 2014. The preventive actions taken are of the year 2012 or of the year 2014. Apart from one action each in that year, on 29.06.2015, preventive action under Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, has been taken and bond has been obtained on 08.07.2015. Two crime Nos. 6042 of 2015 and 6053 of 2015 are registered. In relation to Crime No. 6042 of 2015, the police records age of Dashrath to be 27 years. Spot of raid is recorded as near Government dispensary while in Crime register, search of residential house has been mentioned. The learned counsel submits that thus, there is inconsistent material on record and as the non application of mind is apparent, the order of detention is unsustainable. Spot of raid is recorded as near Government dispensary while in Crime register, search of residential house has been mentioned. The learned counsel submits that thus, there is inconsistent material on record and as the non application of mind is apparent, the order of detention is unsustainable. He is relying upon the judgment dated 07.03.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 528 of 2015 (Shahjahan w/o Kalimkhan Samshadkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) and the judgment dated 29.02.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 660 of 2015 (Ravindrasing @ Mullasing s/o Sarwansing Gour Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (City), Nagpur). 4. Shri Rode, learned APP relies upon the reply affidavit as also records. He submits that grounds supplied to the petitioner in support of detention show scrupulous application of mind by Respondent No. 3. Not only Crime No. 6042 of 2015 and 6053 of 2015 as mentioned therein are looked into but there are four in-camera statements which support the order of detention. The fact that witnesses are not ready and willing to come forward because of fear of Dashrath is mentioned in all those statements and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) has independently verified it. Our attention is also invited to the remark put in by the ACP in the margin of statements. In view of two crimes mentioned of the year 2015 itself and four instances brought on record by in- camera witnesses, the learned APP seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that in paragraph 9 while recording the subjective satisfaction, Respondent No. 3 – Commissioner of Police has observed that Dashrath is bootlegger and committed offence within the meaning of Section 2(b-ii) of 1981 Act. However, there is no such provision in the Act. 6. While giving details of Indian Penal Code offences on third page at Sr. No. 4, crime number mentioned is 280 of 2005 while date of its registration is shown as 20.07.2015. At Sr. No. 3, Crime No. 394 of 2004 is mentioned and it is registered on 09.04.2015. In last column, it is mentioned that Dashrath is acquitted on 15.12.2006. 7. In the order of detention as also in the grounds given to him, age of Dashrath is recorded as 45 years. Crime No. 6042 of 2015 is dated 29.07.2015. At Sr. No. 3, Crime No. 394 of 2004 is mentioned and it is registered on 09.04.2015. In last column, it is mentioned that Dashrath is acquitted on 15.12.2006. 7. In the order of detention as also in the grounds given to him, age of Dashrath is recorded as 45 years. Crime No. 6042 of 2015 is dated 29.07.2015. It is mentioned that raid was conducted when he was selling illicit liquor and at that time, 13 country made liquor bottles costing Rs. 650/- were seized from him. Crime No. 6053 of 2015 is in relation to possessing 20 litres of country liquor on 15.09.2015. 8. FIR No. 6042 of 2015 mentions Police raid between 1800 hrs. and 1840 hrs. and raid has been conducted after receipt of secret intelligence. The place of raid is near residence of Dashrath. The details show that in front of bhangar shop, the accused named in the FIR was sitting and caught red handed at that place only while selling illicit liquor. Police enquired his name and he disclosed it to be Dashrath Dadarao Kale and age as 27 years. The seizure of liquor bottles costing Rs. 650/- is from this public place. On 29.07.2015, while sending intimation to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), the police mentioned that as the offence is of bailable nature, Dashrath was not arrested. This appears to be incorrect as the offence under Section 65(E) is non bailable. In police station diary vide entry No. 20 at 1905 hrs., the raid is mentioned as conducted near the residence of Dashrath. In the extract of crime register, 13 bottles costing Rs. 650/- are stated to be seized while conducting search of the house of Dashrath. The total property seized is not shown as 26 bottles costing Rs. 1,300/-. 9. The intimation is given to Dashrath on 29.07.2015 itself to appear in the Court of JMFC No. 7 at Amravati on 28.09.2015 at 10.30 A.M. as charge sheet would be filed on that date. Thus intimation of date of appearance scheduled after two months has been given to Dashrath. Hence, inconsistency about the age of Dashrath, about place of raid and this intimation of two months in advance, create serious doubt about the correctness of facts mentioned in support of detention. The fact that the offence is bailable also appears to be erroneously mentioned. 10. Hence, inconsistency about the age of Dashrath, about place of raid and this intimation of two months in advance, create serious doubt about the correctness of facts mentioned in support of detention. The fact that the offence is bailable also appears to be erroneously mentioned. 10. Though, there is some controversy about the age of the detenue, the petitioner – Sau. Chandabai Kale, who claims to be the mother of Dashrath, has declared herself to be 49 years old. Hence, his age as recorded in Crime No. 6042 of 2015 does not appear to be incorrect but mention of his age in the order of detention appears to be wrong. 11. There are four in-camera statements on record. These in-camera statements are recorded on 31.07.2015, 06.08.2015, 11.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 by the Senior Police Inspector Shri K.M. Pundkar. In the margin on first page of each statement, there is endorsement by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). The ACP has not placed any date below that endorsement. The endorsement is identical and it states that witness who gave in-camera statement was summoned and his statement was personally verified by the ACP. The ACP found situation as deposed to by the said witness. It is recorded that the ACP was accordingly satisfied about that position and statement appears to be true. 12. In the grounds of detention, in paragraph 6, Respondent No. 3 has mentioned that since general public is afraid of Dashrath, it is not willing to depose against him in open fearing backlash. The police recorded such statements of four different witnesses. Then the gist of four statements are mentioned at paragraph Nos. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4. In paragraph 7, it is mentioned that material looked into by the Commissioner of Police shows that Dashrath is continuously selling country made liquor. In paragraph 8, it is mentioned that he is creating an atmosphere of fear and bootlegging activity is detrimental to public peace and order. In paragraph 9, there is a reference to the offence under Section 2(b-ii) of the 1981 Act. It is also mentioned that people in the said locality are experiencing a sense of insecurity and living under constant shadow of fear. His activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In paragraph 9, there is a reference to the offence under Section 2(b-ii) of the 1981 Act. It is also mentioned that people in the said locality are experiencing a sense of insecurity and living under constant shadow of fear. His activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In paragraph 10, Respondent No. 3 – Commissioner of Police has mentioned that after going through material on record, he was satisfied that the petitioner had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order. 13. We have perused the original records handed over by the learned APP. The original in-camera statements are not in sealed envelops and form part of said record. There is no remark or endorsement by the Commissioner of Police anywhere on these statements to show that he has seen the same. 14. While going through the records, we were finding it difficult to locate the recommendations or proposal for initiation of preventive action. In the process of finding it out, we got report dated 23.09.2015 sent by the Senior Police Inspector Shri Pundkar requesting the Commissioner of Police to proceed under the 1981 Act. This report is forwarded through the ACP. The ACP who has verified the statements has forwarded report on 26.09.2015. This report in Marathi, at Sr. No. 3 in Indian Penal Code Crime chart, mentions date of Crime No. 394 of 2004 as 09.11.2004 with date of acquittal as 15.12.2006. At Sr. No. 4, against Crime No. 280 of 2005, date 20.07.2005 is mentioned. While in English document date is mentioned as 20.07.2015. The ACP has thereafter made reference to representations made against Dashrath by local persons and thereafter to four in-camera statements. Thereafter in one line, it is mentioned that in-camera witnesses were questioned as above and truth of assertions was verified by the ACP, note was accordingly taken on in-camera statements. Date on which in-camera statements were verified by calling witnesses is not apparent. There is no date below said endorsement by the ACP. When on 23.09.2015, the Senior Police Inspector forwarded the proposal recommending preventing action, the verification could have been only on 24.09.2015 or 25.09.2015 by said ACP. Thus, there is no proper material on record to ascertain whether there is such verification by the ACP or not. 15. There is no date below said endorsement by the ACP. When on 23.09.2015, the Senior Police Inspector forwarded the proposal recommending preventing action, the verification could have been only on 24.09.2015 or 25.09.2015 by said ACP. Thus, there is no proper material on record to ascertain whether there is such verification by the ACP or not. 15. As we have already observed supra, there is nothing in original in-camera statements to show that the Commissioner of Police has looked into those statements or undated remark of the ACP about its verification. 16. At page 44, Marathi translation of grounds of detention appears. In Marathi translation, the mistakes about crime number and date which are appearing in English order do not figure. It appears that the Commissioner of Police has passed the order in English and its translation is certified by the ACP Crime Branch, Amravati. 17. Apart from this Marathi translation, the Commissioner of Police has on 07.11.2015 passed an order in Marathi, which is on notes side of record and appears after office note signed by Paresh Atram, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch on 03.11.2015. This office note is on the subject of proposal under M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 and runs up to page 44. Below signature of Paresh Atram, there is remark that DCP (HQ) is on leave. Below that in Marathi, there is an order of Commissioner of Police accepting the proposal and stating that the orders are being issued. 18. Thus, this is the first application of mind by the Commissioner of Police to the entire material on record. In opening part itself, apart from other material, the recommendation of the ACP mentioned supra is also noted. There it is observed that because of all this, the ordinary people are not daring to lodge police complaints and dwell under the atmosphere of fear and terror. However, copy of this note/order is not served upon Dashrath. Lacunae noticed above are enough to demonstrate non-application of mind. 19. In unreported judgments mentioned supra, the aspect of verification of in-camera statements of the Detaining Authority has only been gone into in similar situation. A.S. Chandurkar, J. is a party to the judgment dated 07.03.2016 and B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. is a party to the judgment dated 29.02.2016. Lacunae noticed above are enough to demonstrate non-application of mind. 19. In unreported judgments mentioned supra, the aspect of verification of in-camera statements of the Detaining Authority has only been gone into in similar situation. A.S. Chandurkar, J. is a party to the judgment dated 07.03.2016 and B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. is a party to the judgment dated 29.02.2016. Hence, following that view and in the circumstances of the case, we allow criminal writ petition and quash and set aside the order of detention dated 07.11.2015 as approved by the State Government on 02.12.2015 and the said Dashrath s/o Dadarao Kale, aged about 27 years is set at liberty.