Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. The father of the detenu is the petitioner. The detenu has been detained, branding him as a Goonda by virtue of the order passed by the detaining authority on 9.4.2003. Three grounds were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 9.4.2003. which are as follows: 1) There is variation between the statement of the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the apprehension of the detenu in the public while compared to other materials available on record. 2) Three crime numbers namely Crime No.145/2003, Crime No.250/2003 and Crime No.281/2003 on the file of K4 Anna Nagar Police Station did not give the correct seriatim in the F.I.R. serial number and as such those cases must have been cooked up. When these discrepancies are noted, it would be appropriate for the detaining authority to ask for clarification. Failure to get the correct particulars by the detaining authority with reference to the discrepancy, could vitiate the detention order. 3) On 25.3.2003, the statutory authority filed a requisition before the Judicial Magistrate concerned seeking for a copy application of the remand order in respect of 7 adverse cases. In that requisition it was specifically stated that the copy of the remand orders are required for the purpose of detaining the detenu under Act 14 of 1984. As such the decision of the authorities concerned, detaining the detenu under the Goonda is pre-conceived one and as such the detention order gets nullified. 2. On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. In regard to the fact that the detenu was apprehended, it is true that in the grounds of detention, it is specifically stated that one Sathyanathan, first informant, Ahamed Kumar and Karthik @ Karthikeyan apprehended them at the spot and recovered the knife and later Sathyanathan lodged a complaint to the Police. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents in the F.I.R. given by Sathyanathan as well as other documents namely the statement of the witnesses including the Police officer would show that the police party came there on patrol duty and on seeing the incident, they rounded and arrested the detenu and others and took them to the Police Station and obtained a complaint from Sathyanathan. 4. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this discrepancy would go to the root of the matter. The detaining authority should not have observed that the first informant and others caught hold of the detenu and other accused and produced to the Police Station as the same is not in consonance with the materials available on record. Though on the face of it, we find that there is some difference, a clear reading of the statement of the police officers and the F.I.R. as contained in pages 253 to 261, would make it clear that V.Kaliyan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiagrajan, Head Constable, Sundaramoorthy Head Constable, Madurai Muthu, Head Constable and Michael another constable would all state that the detenu and others were chased by the public and ultimately they were apprehended both by the police and the public and one person of the public who was injured at the hands of the detenu and others was taken to the police and a complaint was obtained from him. Thus, a reading of the entire statement would indicate that they were apprehended not only by the police but also by the public including the complainant. Therefore, we are to conclude that there is no vital variation with reference to the persons who apprehended the detenu. 5. With regard to the second ground on the strength of the decision referred to in 1995(2) MWN (Crl.)262, it is contended that there is various discrepancies in the serial numbers in the printed F.I.R. It is contended that in Crime No.145/2003, the serial number in 170702 and in Crime No.250/2003 serial number is 170704 and in Crime No.281/2003 the serial number is 170707. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first crime took place on 4.2.2003, second crime on 9.3.2003 and the third crime on 18.3.2003. The decision cited by the learned counsel would not apply to the present facts of the case as it relates to the discrepancy in the printed F.I.R. which would relate to the different police station but in this case all the crime numbers have been registered by the same police station namely K4 Anna Nagar Police Station. Further, in these crime numbers, the properties, namely jewels were recovered on the confession of the detenu. It came to be known that the detenu along with others were involved in 7 adverse cases. Further, in these crime numbers, the properties, namely jewels were recovered on the confession of the detenu. It came to be known that the detenu along with others were involved in 7 adverse cases. Only when he is arrested on 21.3.2003 in the ground case, in pursuance of the confession, the properties involved in all these cases have been recovered from one Pawn broker. It is to be noted in this context, the modus operandi adopted by the detenu is to go in a motor bike and snatch Thali or chain from the neck of the ladies who were standing in the bus stop and walking on the road. Similar incident took place on 21.3.2003. At that time, the public themselves caught him red handed. 6. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Rule 560 of the Police Standing Order would regulate the registration of the case in seriatim only. As far as the crime numbers are concerned they are not in reference to the F.I.R. Serial number. He would also point out the different view expressed in 1995(2) MWN(Crl,) 262 by the other Division Bench made in H.C.P.No.1248/2001 dated 31.1.2003 which reads as follows: "The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence with reference to the ground case was on 20.7.2001 and the printed F.I.R. Format bears the number 396526. The occurrence with reference to the supporting case was on 19.7.2001 and the F.I.R format contains the number 396571. According to the learned counsel from the above, particularly, if one examines the serial number given in the F.I.R format, it can be seen that the ground case was registered earlier and the supporting case was registered later and in these circumstances the detaining authority should have called for the additional affidavit by way of clarification. We find it difficult to accept this contention for the reason that the Crime Number in the supporting case is 1534/2001 while in the ground case it is 1540/201. The Court is concerned only about the crime numbers. That apart, the F.I.R. Formats are kept in a book form and each book contains 25 leaves. That being so, nothing turns on those facts in favour of the petitioner". 7. The Court is concerned only about the crime numbers. That apart, the F.I.R. Formats are kept in a book form and each book contains 25 leaves. That being so, nothing turns on those facts in favour of the petitioner". 7. In view of this observation, we entirely agree to hold that the serial numbers in the alternative as found in the F.I.R. copies would not make out much difference with reference to the validity of the detention order. Accordingly, we reject the second contention as well. 8. Thirdly, it is stated that on 25.3.2003 itself the sponsoring authority filed the requisition to the Judicial Magistrate concerned seeking for copies of the remand order without reference to the adverse case stating that the detenu is to be booked under the Goondas Act. It is to be pointed out in this context that the sponsoring authority filed an affidavit before the detaining authority seeking for detention order only on 7.4.2003 and on perusal of the records the detaining authority passed the order of detention, branding the detenu as Goonda on 9.4.2003. It is necessary for the sponsoring authority to file the requisition along with the report requesting the detaining authority to pass an order of detention . It is quite essential for the sponsoring authority to collect all the copies to be placed before the detaining authority to specify the detaining authority to come to a conclusion that he is to be detained as a Goonda. In the process of collection of documents, the Sponsoring authority filed a requisition on 25.3.2003. It was also fairly contended that those documents are required. Therefore, the reason given in the requisition before the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of getting those copies would not be a ground to hold that already a decision has been taken to detain the detenu and as such it is pre-conceived. The fact remains that the decision to be taken with reference to the detention of the detenu is only by the detaining authority and not by the Sponsoring authority. 9. The documents were sought for on 25.3.2003 itself and in fact the sponsoring authority is Perambalur Police. Almost all other adverse cases would relate to K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Thirumangalam, Numgambakkam and Koyampedu and the Sponsoring authority is a different Police. 9. The documents were sought for on 25.3.2003 itself and in fact the sponsoring authority is Perambalur Police. Almost all other adverse cases would relate to K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Thirumangalam, Numgambakkam and Koyampedu and the Sponsoring authority is a different Police. The only ground for collection of the documents is by specifying to the detaining authority the actual position. This has been done by the sponsoring authority. In view of the matter it cannot be concluded that the sponsoring authority had mentioned in the requisition the purpose of requirement and it would not be said that it is a pre-conceived decision. Therefore, in our view the third contention would also fail. 10. Ultimately, we are constrained to dismiss the Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. This observation would confine only to the disposal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.