Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. Heard Mr.N. Ramu for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The order of preventive detention dated 30.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. The petitioner has raised two contentions in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. First contention is to the effect that in the order of preventive detention it has been indicated “ . . . Later he was produced before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and lodged him at Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoner till 18.4.2003. The remand was further extended till 2.5.2003. The investigation of the case is not yet over...” It has been submitted that factually this statement is incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner was arrested on 18.4.2003 and remanded till 2.5.2003, but before 18.4.2003, he was not a prisoner even though it was so indicated in the grounds of detention. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has asserted in the affidavit that the remand order relating to the said case has not been furnished. At any rate, since there is factual mis-statement, which indicates non-application of mind, the order of preventive detention is liable to be quashed. 4. The second contention of the petitioner is to the effect that in the grounds of detention, there is reference to eleven adverse cases, out of which the petitioner is stated to have been convicted in nine cases and out of those nine convicted cases, copies of the judgment in four cases had not been made available to him. Such judgments are obviously material documents and since they form part of the grounds for detention, the detaining authority should have furnished copies of those judgments. Non-furnishing of copies of those judgments would evidently prejudice the petitioner inasmuch as he will not be in a position to make an effective representation. 5. Having regard to all these aspects, the impugned order of detention is set aside. Habeaus Corpus Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with some other case.