We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri Shankar Chilraj, learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra and Shri Suhas Kadam, learned Counsel for respondent No. 10. On 10th January, the District Magistrate, Nagpur, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, and by Government Order Home Department (Special) Ministry Mumbai No. DDS directed Tanaji Keshavrao Bhoite resident of Kishavkunj, Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon to be detained under the provisions of the 1981 Act. This order was followed by another order of the same date directing that Tanaji Keshavrao Bhoite be lodged in Central Jail, Nagpur. The validity of the detention order dated 10th January, 1969 was challenged by the present appellant, who is the son of the detenu, in the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. A Division Bench of that Court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by the appellant on 20th January, 1969. This present appeal arises, by special leave, from this order. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, urged sundry grounds for challenge to the order of the High Court. We do not wish to deal with all the grounds urged by Dr. A. M. Singhvi as, in our view, the appeal should be allowed on the brief grounds which we indicate hereinafter. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Act, the detenu was furnished with the grounds for detention detailing the offences and the action taken against him. The offences recorded against the prisoner till the last offence recorded have been noted by the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that the activities of the prisoner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he was dangerous. In its reasoning for acquitting the respondents here, the trial court stated in its findings that none of the eyewitnesses were able to support the prosecution's case. The court stated that the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased, gave a completely different version of events than that of the accused.