Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.) P.D.Dinakaran, J. The petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking to call for the records relating to the order of detention in Memo No.184/BDFGIS-V/2005, dated 28.04.2005, on the file of the first respondent and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu Mr.Nazir, who is the niece of the petitioner and son of Mr.Shahul Hameed, and confined in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. On 25.4.2005 at about 7.00 hrs. Thiru P.Asokan, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B1 North Beach Police Station received a reliable information from his informant that pirated recently released film VCDs are sold at Shop No.84-A, Burma Buzaar, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. The Inspector of Police, after informing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Harbour Range and the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, proceeded to the said shop along with his party, which he reached at 7.30 hrs. and served the search memo to Thiru Nazir and noticed VCDs of recently released films and obscene VCDs. As the said Nazir has no copy right, he was arrested at 7.35 hrs. and all the available VCDs and DVDs were seized. The Inspector of police examined Thiru Nazir and recorded his voluntary confession statement. In his confession, he has stated that with the help of his friend Thiru Thamim Ansari, he used to prepare pirated VCDs in the computer unit at No.152, Pattinathar Street, Perambur, Chennai and share the profits with him. Hence, after giving search intimation to the learned Magistrate, the Inspector of Police reached the spot at 09.45 hrs and arrested Thiru Thamim Ansari and after serving search memo to him, conducted search at the said unit and seized pirated VCDs, which were available there. The Inspector arrested the said Thamim Ansari and returned to the police station. Thereafter, he registered a case in Crime No.315/2005 under Sections 51, 52(A) r/w.63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and 292(a), IPC and 4(1) r/w.15(2) of TNEF Act and took up investigation of the case and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later Tvl.Nazir and Thamim Ansari were produced before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and lodged at Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoners till 09.5.2005. 3. Later Tvl.Nazir and Thamim Ansari were produced before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and lodged at Central Prison, Chennai as remand prisoners till 09.5.2005. 3. Taking note of the above case as ground case and on being satisfied that Thiru Nazir committed offences under Chapter 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and by selling VCDs of recent Tamil films in open market, he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, branding him as a 'Video Pirate' as contemplated under Section 2(j) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the first respondent passed the order of detention. Challenging the same, the above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation and there is a discrepancy in mentioning the crime number in the grounds of detention, which discloses non-application of mind by the detaining authority and hence, seeks to quash the order of detention. 5. Of course, as per the details furnished, there is no delay in disposal of representation. However, it is not in dispute that there is no adverse case against the petitioner and the only case the petitioner is facing is registered in Crime No.315/2005 under Sections 51, 52(A) r/w.63, 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and 292(a), IPC and 4(1) r/w.15(2) TNEF Act. But in the grounds of detention, in para 4, it is stated that the detenu Nazir is in remand in B1 North Beach Police Station in Crime No.307/2005 and that he has filed a bail application before the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3386/2005 and the same is pending. According to the learned counsel, the said facts, viz., that the detenu is an accused in Crime No.307/2005 and he has been remanded in the said case at the instance of B1 North Beach Police Station and he has filed bail application before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, are totally incorrect. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the above discrepancy, which is apparent on the face of the record, discloses the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the above discrepancy, which is apparent on the face of the record, discloses the non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.