Judgment : Per P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Dhanasekaran @ Kadukkan, who is detained as a “Bootlegger” as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 23.3.2006, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking us through paragraph 3(ii) of the grounds of detention, has contended that the description relating to capacity of the bottle and the quantity of arrack collected for opinion amply show the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. The relevant portion in paragraph 3(ii) reads as under: “Further, he collected samples of arrack in four bottles of about 375 ml. in each bottle having capacity of 350 ml. from the lorry tube and a white plastic can and marked as A1, B1, A2, B2, sealed the bottles with the name and address of the accused.” 4. The above reference makes it clear that it is impossible to collect 375 ml. of arrack in the bottle having capacity of 350 ml. No doubt the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out that in the Chemical Analysis Report and Mahazar as well as in the Tamil version of grounds of detention it has been correctly stated viz., the capacity of the bottle as 375 ml and arrack was collected in the said bottles to 350 ml. However, there is no explanation for giving such wrong discrepancy in the English version of the grounds of detention. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we hold that the detention order is vitiated due to non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. On this ground, the detention is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. 5. The habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.