Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 11.7.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.346 of 2005, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely, Jamal before this court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Jamal, who was detained as a "Goonda" under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982" by the impugned proceeding dated 11.7.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials would submit that even though as per the arrest report the detenu was arrested at 16.45 hours on 28.6.2005 and taken to police station at 17.15 hours, the arrest card contains crime number i.e. before registering the First Information Report and in the absence of special report from the Sponsoring authority, the ultimate decision taken by the detaining authority cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 2001 (1) C.T.C. 669 (GOMATHI v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANCHEEPURAM). In the said decision it was contended that the detenu was arrested on 18.8.2001 at 21.00 hours and the crime was registered at 22.00 hours on the same day. However the seizure Mahazar which was prepared at 21.15 hours i.e. prior to registering of the case contains the crime number and the same would only show that the facts as put forward by the respondent cannot be true. It is also stated before the Division Bench that the detaining authority did not call for any clarification from the sponsoring authority in this regard before passing the order of detention. It is also stated before the Division Bench that the detaining authority did not call for any clarification from the sponsoring authority in this regard before passing the order of detention. The Division Bench upheld the submission of the petitioner and after finding that it is a clear case of non-application of mind, quashed the detention order. In so far the case on hand, learned Government Advocate brought to our notice that at 16.45 hours on 28.6.2005, the detenu in view of his activities namely, panic and fear in the minds of the public, was taken into custody and thereafter brought to the police station and after registering a complaint, he was arrested at 17.15 hours on 28.6.2005. In such circumstances, according to the learned Government Advocate there is no error or a flaw in the procedure that was followed by the department. We verified the contents of the First Information Report, which is available at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book and also necessary averments in the grounds of detention. As rightly pointed out, taking note of the situation namely, panic in the minds of the public, the detenu was taken into custody at 16.45 hours and thereafter he was taken to the police station and after registering the case he was arrested at 17.15 hours on the same day i.e. 28.6.2005. In the light of the details mentioned above, we do not find any material in the claim made by the petitioner. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of improper translation of many documents. In the light of the details mentioned above, we do not find any material in the claim made by the petitioner. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of improper translation of many documents. In support of the above claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that in para 3 of the grounds of detention regarding the ground case, the detaining authority has mentioned that S. Ramapandian Inspector of Police, D.9, Seerani Police Station registered a case in D.9 Seerani Arangam Police Station crime No.143 of 2005 for offences under Sections 392, 366, 506(ii) and 397 I.P.C. According to the counsel, in the Tamil version supplied to the detenu, the relevant sections have been mentioned as sections 392, 336 (and not 366 as stated in the English version), 506(ii) and 397 I.P.C. According to him in the absence of proper explanation and necessary correction with regard to the alleged offence, namely, 336, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Here again we are unable to accept the said contention since except in para 3 of the English version of the grounds of detention, in all other places namely, in Tamil version, First Information Report, rough sketch, Observation Mahazar etc. the offences in crime No.143 of 2005 had been correctly mentioned as Sections 392, 336,506(ii) and 397 I.P.C. As a matter of fact, even in the same para of the English version namely, para 3 at the later part, the detaining authority has correctly mentioned the offences as under Sections 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the reference made to the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is only trivial in nature. We are satisfied that the same has not prejudiced the detenu in making an effective representation as claimed. 5. It is also brought to our notice that in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu namely, Jamal is in remand as "he has moved any bail application so far". In fairness it should be "he has not moved any bail application so far". In the Tamil version of the grounds of detention the same has been correctly mentioned. In fairness it should be "he has not moved any bail application so far". In the Tamil version of the grounds of detention the same has been correctly mentioned. It is not in dispute that the detenu is conversant only with Tamil language. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the omission "not" in the second sentence of para 4 is not fatal to the passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.