Many people were victimized due to his criminal activities and they feared to complain about his atrocious activities.He has further stated that in the third week of the month of March, 2003, on one evening at 19.00 hrs.JUDGMENT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.Through this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade, has impugned the order of detention dated 054.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Solapur.By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Pretention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act" for the sake of brevity).B to the petition, shows that the impugned order of detention is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 92/2003 registered under Section 307 and 504 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and r.w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint dated 26.3.2003 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of Gajendra Dattatraya Harale lodged at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur.Besides C.R. No. 92/2003, the detention order is also based on two incamera statements of two witnesses namely 'A' and 'B' which were recorded on 15.4.2003 and 16.4.2003 respectively.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Although, in this writ petition, a large number of grounds have been pleaded i.e. ground 6(A) to 6(L), the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds.The first ground is that the detention order has been issued relying on three incidents i.e. C.R. No. 92/2003 and two incamera statements, however, none of the three incidents affect public order.Shri Chitnis has further contended that all the three incidents are confined to individual persons and they are private crimes as distinct from public crime.He has further contended that none of the incidents in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor do any of the incidents affect the peace and tranquillity of the people of that particular locality where the crime had been committed and hence none of the incidents affect public order.In the said case, the detaining authority had relied on two incidents and issued the order of detention.In case of the first incident i.e. Crime Case No. 109/1985, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said incident did not affect the public order whereas as far as the second case was concerned i.e. Crime Case No. 222/1985, the Supreme Court held that the public order was disturbed by the said incident.In respect of the first incident the Supreme Court in para No. 12 observed thus:-In the instant case, the criminal acts referred to in ground No. 1 are to the effect that on 4th June, 1985 at about 11 p.m. some persons informed the complainant that his brother has been shot by some persons and when complainant reached the spot he found his brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in the pool of blood and he had already died.Crime Case No. 109/1985 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered at Ghazipur Police Station.This incident is confined to individual persons and it is private crime as distinct from public crime.Further they have stated that due to fear of reprisal they did not lodge complaint with respect to the said incident.Hence, considering the incidents as narrated by the incamera witnesses 'A' and 'B', it would affect the public order as defined under the Act."In respect of the contention that the incident pertaining to C.R. No. 92/2003 does not affect public order, the detaining authority has inter alia stated in para No. 11 of his affidavit that (SIC) say that the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 had stated that after witnessing the said incident, due to fear the witnesses ran away and nobody came to their help.The said fact as stated by the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 alongwith the other material such as statement of eye witnesses and other witnesses having being considered clearly falls within the purview of public order under the MPDA Act."The learned A.P.P. Mrs. A.S. Pai has brought to our notice that in the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenu assaulted the mother of the complainant on the head with sword.Thereafter, the detenu assaulted the complainant Gajendra Harale on the head and on the left hand finger.Then to save Gajendra, his old grand mother Kausalyabai covered Gajendra Harale with her body, but the detenu continued his attack and assaulted her on the head and on her hands.this witness was passing from Tuljapur Naka with his auto-rickshaw.At that time, the detenu and this one associate stopped his auto-rickshaw and asked to take him to Kali Masjid.After leaving the detenu at Kali Masjid, the witness asked him to pay the fare of Rs. 20/-.At that time the detenu abused and threatened him that if he asked for the fare, the detenu would kill him.Then the witness requested the detenu to pay him at least Rs. 10/- for petrol.Due to the request made by this witness, the detenu get annoyed and took him out of the auto-rickshaw forcibly and abused and assaulted him.The associate of detenu damaged the glasses of the auto-rickshaw with a stone.During this incident no one came to help the witness but ran away due to detenu's fear.The two nearby shop-keepers closed their shops.While leaving the spot the detenu threatened this witness not to complain regarding this matter otherwise the detenu would not allow him to do his business in that area.Due to fear of reprisal the witness did not complain about this incident.From the fact that the other persons instead of coming to help the witness ran away due to fear of the detenu, it is clear that the act of the detenu generated a feeling of fear and terror in the minds of the persons who witnessed the incident.The reach and effect of this incident is that it disturbed public tranquillity and thus it affected public order.It is also seen that two nearby shop keepers closed their shops on witnessing this incident.Thus, it is clear that this incident affected public order.In relation to the incident pertaining to witness 'B', on perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that witness 'B' has stated that he knew the detenu as a notorious goonda operating in the area.Due to his criminal activities, ordinary people in the area are unwilling to complain against him.His associates are involved in the offences of extortion.They often extort money from the witness and from small scale business persons.The vegetable cart of the witness was burnt in the riots, which occurred in the month of October 2002, hence, the witness did not pay the amount to the associates of the detenu.This witness has further stated that in the first week of March, 2003 on one morning at 10.00 hrs.he was selling vegetables on his cart.When the witness came near Dhangekar Automobiles in Budhwar Peth area, the detenu and his one associate were passing from that place on the detenu's motorcycle.At that time, the detenu's associate told some thing to the detenu pointing towards this witness, due to which the detenu came to the witness and started to assault him, threatening that the witness was doing the business in his area and he is not paying the detenu.The detenu threatened the witness that if he saw this witness in that area, the detenu will kill him.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code