Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and questions the correctness and legality of the detention order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the first respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the respondents the detenue was arrested on 18.8.2001 at 21.00 hours and the crime was registered at 22.00 hours on the same day. But, however, the seizure Mahazar which was prepared at 21.15 hours, (i.e.) prior to the registering of the case contains the crime number and the same would only show that the facts as put forward by the respondent cannot be true. The detaining authority did not call for any clarification from the sponsoring authority in this regard before passing the order of detention. 3. Weperused the records and we find that the petitioner is right in his submission. This is a clear case of non-application of mind. In a case of this nature, the detaining authority before passing the detention order should have sought for necessary clarification. 4. In these circumstances, the impugned order of detention dated 20.9.2001 passed by the first respondent is hereby setaside. This H.C.P.No. 1563 of 2001 is allowed. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with some other cases.