Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Kolavikkannan @ Nagaraj, who has been branded as Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the detention order dated 212. 2007 passed by the second respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs.R.Subadradevi has raised two grounds in order to assail the impugned detention order. It is her first and foremost contention that the detenu was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari on 112. 2007 and the Court passed an order as, "the accused not seen through video conferencing system due to power failure, produce on 212. 2007," but the translated version in Tamil shows as if the remand was extended till 212. 2007. The error crept into the translation process has very much prejudiced the rights of the detenu. Secondly, she submits that while the date of detention was 212. 2007, there was no material on record to show that beyond 212. 2007, the remand of the detenu was extended and in fact on 212. 2007, there was no valid remand so as to make the detaining authority to reach the subjective satisfaction. 3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran for the respondents. 4. As far as the first ground is concerned, the error in the translation of the remand order is patent. When the Court has passed an order for production of the accused on 212. 2007, it has been wrongly interpreted as if the remand was extended upto 212. 2007. While perusing such records, the detaining authority should have obtained clarification from the sponsoring authority as to the discrepancy crept in the translation. The failure on the part of the detaining authority in getting clarification before passing the detention order shows his non-application of mind at the time of passing of the detention order, which would vitiate the order of detention. 5. So far as the existence of a valid remand on 212. 2007 is concerned, there is no material available among the records to show that beyond 212. 2007, the remand was extended. The respondent-State has not shown that a valid order of extension of remand was in force on 212. 2007 on the date of passing of the detention order. Without such material, the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that the detenu was on remand on 212. 2007, the remand was extended. The respondent-State has not shown that a valid order of extension of remand was in force on 212. 2007 on the date of passing of the detention order. Without such material, the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that the detenu was on remand on 212. 2007 as well. This aspect would seriously prejudice the valuable rights of the detenu. We are of the considered view that on the above said two grounds, the detention order would not stand which deserves to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 212. 2007 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.