Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in Memo No.308/BDFGISV/2005 dated 27.06.2005, quash the same, direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner, namely, S. Ganesan (detenu) now detained at Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 27.06.2005, detaining him as ‘Goonda’ as contemplated under 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 14 of 1982). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking us through page No.135 of the Paper-Book, contended that translation has not been properly made relating to the time of production of the accused before the learned Magistrate. A perusal of the Requisition Report makes it clear that the detenu/accused was arrested on 11.06.2005 and produced before the Magistrate on 12.06.2005 at 5.30 P.M. This has been correctly stated in the English version of the Remand Order, which is available at page No.134 of the Paper Book. However, in the Tamil version of the remand order, it is mentioned as "05.30 kzpf;F" as if the accused was produced at 05.30 A.M. on 12.06.2005. In view of the details available in the Requisition Report as well as the Remand Order available at page No.134 of the Paper Book, we are of the view that merely because, in the Tamil Translation, the authority has mentioned that the accused was produced before the Magistrate at 05.30 hrs., it would not affect the ultimate detention order. 4. By taking us through page Nos.65 to 68, 99, 104 and 119 to 122 of the Paper Book , learned counsel contended that those pages are not legible. We verified those pages and we are satisfied that the contents in those pages are legible and readable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I.R., which is available at page Nos.103 and 104 of the Paper Book, the signature of the complainant does not find place. We verified those pages and we are satisfied that the contents in those pages are legible and readable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I.R., which is available at page Nos.103 and 104 of the Paper Book, the signature of the complainant does not find place. It is not in dispute that based on the complaint, the Inspector of Police recorded the same and prepared the F.I.R. and that copy of the same has been served to the detenu. It is not the case of the petitioner that no such complaint has been made by the complainant as stated in the F.I.R. Thus, we find no merit in this submission. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that so many documents have been inserted in the paper book and that was the reason they assigned additional page numbers. We verified the entire paper book. There is no reason to conclude that certain documents have been inserted. On verification, we find no substance in the said contention. 7. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the arrest report itself mentions that the same was prepared under Section 62 C.P.C. It is not in dispute that in the Tamil version of the Arrest Report, which is available at page No.129, it has been correctly stated as “F/K/tp/r“, thereby mentioning that the arrest report was prepared under Section 62 Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel further contended that though, in the Requisition Report, the Sponsoring Authority has referred to all the Crime Numbers relating to the adverse cases, the accused was remanded only in respect of Crime No.397 of 2005 on the file of Solaiyur Police Station. It is not a mistake as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that in the Requisition Report, the Sponsoring Authority has mentioned all the details including the Crime Numbers in respect of the adverse cases. The learned Magistrate, on production of the accused on 12.06.2005 in respect of Crime No.397 of 2005, which relates to the ground case, being satisfied after perusing the records, remanded the accused/detenu to judicial custody till 24.06.2005. There is no error or flaw as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned Magistrate, on production of the accused on 12.06.2005 in respect of Crime No.397 of 2005, which relates to the ground case, being satisfied after perusing the records, remanded the accused/detenu to judicial custody till 24.06.2005. There is no error or flaw as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as all the adverse cases relate to theft, that is, offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, and only the ground case relates to offences punishable under Sections 341, 392, 397, 427 and 506 (2) IPC., the Detaining Authority is not justified in clamping the detention order based on a solitary instance, viz., the ground case occurrence. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (1) Crimes 446 (SC) (Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others). 10. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the detenu had 19 adverse cases, all under Section 379 IPC., to his credit and all those cases are pending trial before the respective courts. This Bench as well as other Division Benches had occasion to consider the dictum laid down in Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case. In HCP No.26 of 2003, Order dated 17.10.2003, a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision in Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case and pointing out that all the eleven adverse case occurrences had taken place only within the jurisdiction of K.K. Nagar Police Station and that in all the matters, the detenu was arrested by the staff of the said Police Station; observed that if the incident of thefts are too many in a singular locality coupled with the offence of house breaking, then it is bound to disturb the even tempo of public life as in that case the public may not feel safe. The Division Bench, finding that the law laid down in Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case would not apply to the facts of that case, upheld the order of detention, dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition. Distinguishing Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case, similar detention orders have been upheld by other Benches of this Court, vide, i. HCP No.1663 of 2003 dated 27.01.2004 ii. HCP No.218 of 2004 dated 28.04.2004 iii. HCP No.388 of 2005 dated 26.07.2005. Distinguishing Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case, similar detention orders have been upheld by other Benches of this Court, vide, i. HCP No.1663 of 2003 dated 27.01.2004 ii. HCP No.218 of 2004 dated 28.04.2004 iii. HCP No.388 of 2005 dated 26.07.2005. In the light of the catena of decisions referred above, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as observed in those cases, the decision in Darpan Kumar Sharma’s case is not applicable to the case on hand also. 11. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. HCP fails and the same is dismissed.