Judgment :- P.D.Dinakaran, J. The petitioner, who has been incarcerated by an order of detention dated 3.10.2003 of the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (for short “the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”) dubbing him as a goonda, challenges the order of detention on the main ground that the translated copy of the impugned order of preventive detention has not been correctly translated. 2. The ground case is said to have taken place on 23.9.2003 at about 18.30 hrs within the jurisdiction of Vadamadurai Police Station. It is stated that the detenu Anbazhagan threatened one Jayalani at the knife point and took Rs.250/- from his pocket, demanded more money, and threw out the vessels kept in the mobile cart belonging to Jayalani. The detenu also threatened the public with dire consequence and fled away from that place, creating an alarm and a feeling of insecurity among the minds of the general public. A complaint was lodged by Jayalani and a case was registered as P.S.Cr.No.334/2003 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. on the file of the Vadamadurai Police Station and based on the said complaint, the detenu was apprehended on 24.9.2003. 3. It is further stated that there are four adverse cases registered against the petitioner: (i) P.S.Cr.No.2 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(i) of I.P.C. on the file of Vadamadurai Police Station; (ii) P.S.Cr.No.603 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Section 387 of I.P.C. on the file of Vadamadurai Police Station; (iii) P.S.Cr.No.136 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 325 and 379 of I.P.C. on the file of Vadamadurai Police Station; and (iv) P.S.Cr.No.333 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. on the file of Vadamadurai Police Station. 4. Considering the ground case and also the adverse cases, referred to above, the first respondent passed the impugned detention order dated 3.10.2003 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 5. 4. Considering the ground case and also the adverse cases, referred to above, the first respondent passed the impugned detention order dated 3.10.2003 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 5. According to Mr.S.P.Sivanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the detaining authority by order dated 3.10.2003, based on the ground case and the adverse cases, was of the opinion that there was an imminent possibility that the petitioner might come out on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. as he had already filed Crl.M.P.No.4650 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul District, in the tamil translated copy of the detention order, the word "imminent" was not translated at all, and was translated as if there was only a possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail. Mr.S.P.Sivanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not acquainted with English language and therefore, he has to totally rely upon the tamil translation of detention order wherein it was not stated that there was imminent possibility of coming out on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision in THANGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2000(2) MWN (Cr.) 16 contends that the petitioner was not able to give an effective representation as there was no reason given by the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to whether there was an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as evident from the tamil translated copy of the detention order served on the petitioner. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is squarely governed by the decision of this Court in THANGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 2000(2) MWN (Cr.) 16, on the ground that the petitioner was not in a position to make his effective representation as to the imminent possibility of coming out on bail, particularly when the petitioner is not acquainted with English language and he has to read only the tamil copy of the detention order which was served on him and which does not speak about the imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allowed this petition. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allowed this petition. The order of detention dated 3.10.2003 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other matter.