Order 1. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal the legality of the detention order dated 18-3-2004 issued by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Perambalur District, Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) has been challenged. The High Court dismissed the writ petition having found no legal infirmity in the detention order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the following statements in the detention order: "Thiru Elasu alias Elavarasan was arrested on 29-2-2004. He gave a voluntary confession about the commission of the offence committed by him. On his confession, the weapons and the car, which were used for the crime were seized under a cover of mahazar. The reason for the arrest was informed to Thiru Elasu alias Elavarasan and all matters relating to his arrest were also informed to his relative." 4. It is the contention of the appellant that the alleged confessional statement has not been supplied to him in spite of request made in that behalf. The High Court after perusing the material papers supplied to the detenu made an observation that the confessional statement was in fact made by the first accused, namely, Vaithi i.e. the brother of the detenu and based on his statement the weapons were recovered under a mahazar. The High Court then observed thus: "Inasmuch as the petitioner, who is a detenu has not made any confessional statement, there is no question of supplying copy of the same to him. Though the confession was made only by A-I and the weapons were recovered based on the same as well as copy of the statement and mahazar were supplied to the detenu, we are of the view that there is no infraction or violation of any of the statutory provisions. In such a circumstance, we reject the second contention also." 5. The counter-affidavit tiled by the District Magistrate also reveals that there was no confessional statement by the detenu either admitting the guilt or leading to the recovery of incriminating objects used in the crime. If that be the case, the statement in the detention order extracted above cannot be correct. The counter-affidavit tiled by the District Magistrate also reveals that there was no confessional statement by the detenu either admitting the guilt or leading to the recovery of incriminating objects used in the crime. If that be the case, the statement in the detention order extracted above cannot be correct. Making of confession by the detenu is evidently one of the crucial factors that was taken into account by the detaining authority. Once that fact is found to be non-existent, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate under the provisions of the aforesaid Act is vitiated. This ground is sufficient to quash the detention order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.