JUDGMENT : VRUSHALI V. JOSHI J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2 and dated 21.09.2023 passed by respondent No.1 detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981. 3. The petitioner came to be detained vide order dated 12.08.2023 passed by the District Magistate, Nagpur in exercise of powers under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, thereby holding that the petitioner’s activity is detrimental to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is questioned on the ground that the material which is considered for recording subjective satisfaction is without any legal basis. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, apart from earlier seven offences, two recent offences are considered by the detaining authority, which were registered from 25.11.2021 to 27.04.2023. All the offences are punishable under Section 65(e) of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , 1949. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that, the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory Department does not say that, the quantity of ethyl alcohol allegedly found was dangerous for public health and in the absence of specific report to that effect impugned order could not have been passed. Further, Chemical Analysis report in Crime No. 129/2023 was not sent for the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory Department and, therefore, satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order is vitiated suffering from non-application of mind. 6. Another aspect about the in-camera statements of the witnesses is that the identity of witness ‘A’ gets disclosed somehow by the addition of the statement that she is the neighbour of the petitioner knowing him since last 7 to 8 years. 7. The earlier offences ought not to have formed basis for ordering detention. In addition to which, the offences which are punishable under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT could be effectively dealt under the said Act. 7. The earlier offences ought not to have formed basis for ordering detention. In addition to which, the offences which are punishable under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT could be effectively dealt under the said Act. Detailed report of the Chemical Analysis for bringing home the guilt of the accused is necessary for the offence under the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT . The petitioner has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions. i] Khaja Bilal Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana and Others , 2019 DGLS (SC) 1677. ii] Deepak Dattu Suryawanshi Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others [2016 DGLS (Bom.) 1001] iii] Hanif Karim Laluwale Vs. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.75/2022] iv] Nilesh Charandas Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.804/2021] v] Ibrahim @ Tipu @ Tipya s/o. Sattar Maniyar Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.1383/2023] vi] Shaikh Gaffar @ Bablu Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.940/2023] vii] Mohammad Arbaz @ Sanu S/o. Mohammad Israil @ Manja Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No.347/2023] viii] Hanif @ Illu Hafiz Ansari Arak Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [Criminal Writ Petition No.546/2023] ix] Gajanan Pundlik Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.875/2022] x] Shri Sonu @ Sobodh s/o. Babaraoji Lanjewar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.642/2023] xi] Vidyadhar H. Varma Vs. R. H. Mendonca and Ors. [1999 BCI 171] xii] Ratnamala Mukund Balkhande Vs. State of Maharashtra [2022 DGLS (Bom.) 1650. xiii] Vijay Palasram Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No.326/2023] xiv] Vinod Subhas Chavan Vs. Himmatrao Deshbhartar and Ors. [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 157] 8. According to Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. for respondents, all the Forensic Science Laboratory reports pertaining to earlier offences (seven in number) from 25.11.2021 to 27.04.2023 are made available. He urges that continuous involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , 1949, speaks of the criminal mind of the petitioner. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed reply and denied the contents of the petition by reiterating the contents in the detention order. He urges that continuous involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , 1949, speaks of the criminal mind of the petitioner. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed reply and denied the contents of the petition by reiterating the contents in the detention order. It is the specific contention of the learned A.P.P. that the Forensic Science Laboratory reports are there, in which the ethyl alcohol is found, which is dangerous to the health and, therefore, considering the confidential statements of the witnesses and the other material on record, the District Magistrate has rightly passed the order detaining the detenue. 10. With regard to his submission, learned A.P.P. has relied on the following judgments : i] Ramesh Balu Chavan Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3683] ii] Kashinath Motiram Chavan Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Solapur and Others [2021 ALL MR (Cri) 3043] iii] Machindra Dnyanoba Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [2021 ALL MR (Cri) 3198] iv] Kanuji S. Zala Vs. State of Gujarat and Others [ (1999) 4 SCC 514 ] 11. The detaining authority has relied on the two cases. Though the seven cases are registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , 1949, the petitioner was not arrested in any of the cases, which are cognizable in nature. The arrest in these crimes could have been done by the Investigating Officer by recording requisite satisfaction under Section 41(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which lays down that the Police Officer may without any order arrest any person if he is satisfied that such arrest is necessary. Such being the nature of power of the Investigating Officer, which was not exercised in the present case, it cannot be said that the registration of two bootlegging crimes against the petitioner provided any reasonable material for detaining authority to arrive at its subjective satisfaction. 12. The two confidential witnesses’ statements are relied by the detaining authority. There is no satisfaction as the statements were not verified by the detaining authority, there is no any endorsement or even not signed by the detaining authority. 12. The two confidential witnesses’ statements are relied by the detaining authority. There is no satisfaction as the statements were not verified by the detaining authority, there is no any endorsement or even not signed by the detaining authority. In both statements, the witnesses stated about quarrel which took place between them as they asked him not to run the said business in the house, which amounts to non-application of mind and it is sufficient to vitiate the impugned detention order. From the confidential statements, it reveals that the complaints are against the individual because they were afraid of the petitioner. As both the statements are against the individual, it would not constitute any relevant material for the purpose of the present case. Such being the nature of both the statements, we do not think that these could have been considered as constituting any relevant material for reaching the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. 13. The another ground is that the detaining authority while considering the material as regards the recently registered two offences against the petitioner punishable under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT , in addition to earlier offences ought not to have formed basis for ordering detention. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for ordering detention sans consideration of the aforesaid issue. 14. Though the forensic reports are filed on record, the reports do not disclose that the said quantity of ethyl alcohol is dangerous to the public health. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of District Collector, Ananthapur Vs. V. Laxmanna reported in 2005 DGLS (SC) 274 in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has made following observations : "7. We do not think this argument of the learned counsel can be accepted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of District Collector, Ananthapur Vs. V. Laxmanna reported in 2005 DGLS (SC) 274 in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has made following observations : "7. We do not think this argument of the learned counsel can be accepted. If the detention is on the ground that the detenu is indulging in manufacture or transport or sale of arrack then that by itself would not become an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order because the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Excise Act but if the arrack sold by the detenu is dangerous to public health then under the Act, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the detaining authority to be satisfied on material available to him that the arrack dealt with by the detenu is an arrack which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the Chemical Examiner or otherwise copy such material should also be given to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation. 8. Therefore, while holding that dealing with arrack which is dangerous to public health would become an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order attracting the provisions of the Act. It must be held that it is obligatory for the detaining authority to provide the material on which it has based its conclusion on this point. Therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that if the detaining authority is of the opinion that it is necessary to detain a person under the Act to prevent him from indulging in sale of goods dangerous for human consumption the same should be based on some material and the copies of the such material should be given to the detenu." 15. Drawing support from the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment referred above, it has to be held that the offences which are punishable under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT could be effectively dealt with under the said Act. Hence, such act of committing an offence or involving into the offence punishable under the aforesaid Act cannot be said to be detrimental to the maintenance of the public order. 16. Hence, such act of committing an offence or involving into the offence punishable under the aforesaid Act cannot be said to be detrimental to the maintenance of the public order. 16. Apart from the above, fact remains that the report of the Chemical Analysis report for bringing home the guilt of the accused does not disclose that though the ethyl alcohol is mentioned, the said quantity is injurious to the health of public. Moreover, the copies which were supplied by the authority were not legible, and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived from giving a reply to the said report. In absence of such reply, it cannot be presumed or cannot be said to have provided basis for recording subjective satisfaction so as to infer the strong case against the accused like the petitioner. In absence of the detailed report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and specific remark that the quantity of ethyl alcohol is injurious to health, gravity or seriousness of the prosecution case looses its significance. In this background, it cannot be said that the recent offences, which are two in number punishable under the MAHARASHTRA PROHIBITION ACT can be said to be relied on for recording subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. 17. Admittedly, in the case in hand, Chemical Analysis report does not disclose that the quantity of ethyl alcohol is dangerous to public health. In this backdrop, the order of the detention of the petitioner stands vitiated and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 18. The petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses – i and ii. 19. The petitioner is ordered to be released from detention forthwith unless his detention is required in any other matters. 20. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.