Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Challenging an order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No.386/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 110. 2007, which was approved by the first respondent, the petitioner has brought forth this petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Concededly, on the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority, referring to four adverse cases and a ground case, which are detailed in the order of detention, the Detaining Authority, after looking into the materials available, took the view that it has arrived at subjective satisfaction and the circumstances would require to pass an order of detention, terming the detenu Thirupathi as Goonda, since his activities were prejudicial to the interest of public order and health and also in order to forbear him from doing so in future. Accordingly, the detention order has been passed. The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel, in his sincere attempt of assailing the order, would inter-alia emphasis only one point, namely non application of mind. The learned counsel took the court to the copy of the document supplied to the detenu. He also took the court to the translation of the remand report. Needless to say that the remand report in a case like this is a material document and the law would mandate that reasonable opportunity should be given in the real sense of term. When the Tamil and English versions were compared, column No.3 of the arrest report in English would read as the Date of Commission 29. 2007, but in the Tamil version, column No.3 has been stated as "ifJ bra;ag;gl;l njjp 22.09.07". The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the court the difference in column No.5 in English and Tamil versions. Thus, it would go to show that when the documents were actually given to the detenu, the correct translated copies were not given to him. The arrest report, as pointed out earlier, is the vital document, which contains the date of arrest and the custody of the detenu. Thus, it would go to show that when the documents were actually given to the detenu, the correct translated copies were not given to him. The arrest report, as pointed out earlier, is the vital document, which contains the date of arrest and the custody of the detenu. The discrepancies, as noted above, cannot be termed to be minor or trivial and hence the discrepancies would indicate the non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which in the opinion of the court would vitiate the order. The court is of the considered opinion that it is a case where the order under challenge has got to be set aside only on the above ground. It is also found that the Tamil version is not exactly one which was stated in the English version. The Inspector of Police, who is the Gazetted officer, has certified the same as true copy and this was the ground which vitiates the order under challenge. It is a fit case where the Commissioner of Police concerned has got to be directed to initiate necessary action against the erring staff concerned. Accordingly, a direction is issued. 5. In the result, the detention order is set aside. This habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.