Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu Selvam, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. 1. The order of detention dated 210. 2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 29. 2007, complaint of which was given by one Raman. According to the complainant, on 29. 2007, when he purchased and consumed arrack sold by the detenu, he felt irritation in his throat, burning sensation in his stomach, blurring in vision and vomited several times. Suspecting that the detenu had mixed some poisonous substance in the arrack, he lodged a complaint. Based on the above-said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Steelplant, Salem registered a case in Crime No.456 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i) and with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police along with his police party enquired the detenu, and the detenu admitted the offence. The detenu was arrested and the contraband was seized. On chemical analysis, it was found that the arrack is mixed with 6.4 mg. of atropine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is a poisonous substance. 2. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the three adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz., Crime No.317 of 2006 on the file of Steelplant Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; and Crime Nos.9 and 298 of 2007 on the file of Karippatty Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 3. 2. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 3. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of the detenu vide detention order dated 210. 2007 on the file of the second respondent made in C.M.P.No.6/BLA/C2/2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Court and to set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in paragraph (3) of the grounds of detention dated 210. 2007 it is stated that the detenu was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem on 29. 2007 and was remanded to judicial custody at Central Prison till 110. 2007, in the vernacular version of the order of remand dated 29. 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, it is stated that the accused was produced at 12.45 p.m., no complaint and he is remanded till 29. 2007, instead of stating that he was remanded till 110. 2007, and the said defect in translation deprived the detenu of making an effective representation objecting his detention and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. We have perused the materials available on record. In page (42) of the paper book filed in support of the order of detention, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, in his order dated 29. 2007 has stated that "Accused produced at 12.45 P.M. No complaint. Remanded till 110. 2007". However, in the translated vernacular version of the said order dated 29. 2007 found at page (43) of the paper book, which was furnished to the detenu, it is stated that the accused was produced at 12.45 pm and he is remanded till 29. 2007. Apparent on the face of the records, there is a contradiction between the English version of the order of remand and its vernacular version furnished to the detenu. 2007. Apparent on the face of the records, there is a contradiction between the English version of the order of remand and its vernacular version furnished to the detenu. The above defect in translation raises a doubt in the mind of the detenu as to whether he was under valid remand after 29. 2007. The above contradiction, in our considered opinion, would deprive the detenu an opportunity of making an effective representation challenging the detention. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of detention is vitiated and therefore, the petition must succeed and the same is ordered as prayed for. The detention order dated 210. 2007 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.