Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The Order of preventive detention has been challenged by the mother of the detenu. The detention is on the ground that the detenu is a bootlegger. 3. Even though several contentions have been raised, we confine our discussion to one point relating to a glaring discrepancy regarding which there has been no explanation. 4. The point raised is that at the time of arrest, the arrest Memo supposedly prepared, at the time of arrest gives the details of the provisions under which, the petitioner was arrested viz., Section 4(1)(aaa) read with Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Crime number is given under column 2 as No.388/2004. The signature at the end of the page disclose that the arrest card was issued at 07.00 hours on 15.5.2004. The furnishing of the crime number in the arrest memo is not possible according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as by then the crime itself had not been registered at the police station. As a matter of fact, from the F.I.R. which is available, it is apparent that the crime was registered at 1.00 p.m. and obviously the crime number could have been given only at that stage and not earlier. Even though this is a serious discrepancy, this was not apparently brought to the notice of the Collector. There is nothing on record to show that the Collector had called for any explanation regarding such discrepancy. This would amount to non-application of mind to the relevant facts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the Order dated 12.10.2001 in H.C.P.No.759 of 2001, where, after considering similar discrepancy, it was observed as follows: "At the time when the mahazar was prepared at the spot, no crime was registered and therefore, it could not have been possible to mention any crime number in the seizure mahazar as well as in the destruction mahazar. This glaring inconsistency has not been adverted to by the detaining authority nor any clarification had been obtained from the sponsoring authority with reference to this discrepancy. This glaring inconsistency has not been adverted to by the detaining authority nor any clarification had been obtained from the sponsoring authority with reference to this discrepancy. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by him is improper. Therefore, on this ground, we are of the view that the order of detention has to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside." 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, however, contended that with modern facilities and availability of cell phones, it is quite possible for the arresting Officer to ascertain the crime number. He says that in a subsequent decision of this Court in H.C.P. 11 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 such a view has been taken. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereunder: "Learned counsel then pointed out that the arrest memo bears the crime number, which ordinarily could not be found. There is an affidavit on record by one Rajendran, Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Trichy, in which he has stated that he was armed with a phone and he ascertained the crime number on telephone and it was in pursuance of that, that the number was put in the arrest memo. Therefore, even this contention fails." 7. In the present case, we find that the ratio of the latter decision would not be applicable as there is no material before this Court, giving similar explanation. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has raised a specific contention in the petition regarding the aforesaid discrepancy in Ground No.8, which is to the following effect: "The authority failed to have noted that the Arrest Memo contains the crime number. It is non-application of mind because before registering this case, the same was prepared. He was arrested on: 7.00 hours. The case registered on: 13.00 hours." The only explanation in relation to such ground is furnished in para 12 of the counter, which is as follows: "Regarding the averment put forth in Ground (h) of the affidavit, is specifically denied as false. He was arrested on: 7.00 hours. The case registered on: 13.00 hours." The only explanation in relation to such ground is furnished in para 12 of the counter, which is as follows: "Regarding the averment put forth in Ground (h) of the affidavit, is specifically denied as false. At the time and place of occurrence after the arrest of the accused, the sponsoring authority informed the reason for his arrest and after that necessary written arrest memo were given to him and also to his relative after filling up the crime no. and other particulars. Further it is stated that the accused was arrested on 15.05.2004 at 07.00 hours. He was brought to station at 13.00 hours is correct. Hence this contention is an incorrect one." A perusal of the aforesaid averment in the counter clearly indicates that there is no explanation as to how the crime number could be given in the arrest memo which was supposed to have been prepared at the time of arrest. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation, the ratio of the latter decision is not applicable, which is distinguishable on facts. 8. In view of the above, the order of detention cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from custody unless his custody is required in any other case.