Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent in proceedings No.406/2007 dated 211. 2007, whereby the mother of the petitioner Sarasu was detained under Act 14/82 terming her as a bootlegger. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of attack are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the order under challenge. 3. On the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority referring to three adverse cases registered by Washermenpet PS under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act and on the strength of a ground case, the detaining authority formed an opinion and recorded a finding that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public health and order, and in order to prevent the same, there was a compelling necessity to detain her under the provisions of the said Act, and hence, he passed the order under challenge. 4. The learned Counsel in his sincere attempt of assailing the order inter alia submitted that there was thorough non-application of mind; that when the materials were placed by the sponsoring authority, all kinds of discrepancies were found among the two versions given one in English and the other in Tamil; that the confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by the police officer from the detenue, was also not signed, and thus, it was not a case where it could be stated that the reasonable opportunity was afforded to the detenue for making a representation properly, and under the circumstances, it has got to be quashed. 5. The learned Counsel took the Court to the necessary parts. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 7. A perusal of the order under challenge in its Tamil version would read that the detenue was produced before the V Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Madras, while the English version would indicate that she was produced before XVI Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Madras. It is a matter of surprise to further note that actually she was not produced either before the V MM or before the XVI MM, but she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur. Thus, it would clearly indicate that there was thorough non-application of mind. 8. It is a matter of surprise to further note that actually she was not produced either before the V MM or before the XVI MM, but she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvotriyur. Thus, it would clearly indicate that there was thorough non-application of mind. 8. Added circumstance was the non-supply of the confessional statement alleged to have been recorded from the detenue by the police officer concerned. A perusal of the order of detention would indicate that the police officer on arrest recorded the statement of the detenue, but the copy of which was not supplied, and thus, it would amount to denial of opportunity to the detenue for making effective representation in that regard. All would suffice to set aside the order. 9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the second respondent is quashed, and this habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.