Judgment S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner is nephew of the detenu viz., Ganesan S/o Late. Ramasamy, who has been branded as a Black Marketeer and detained by means of a detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings D.O.No.15/2008-C2 dated 23.02.2008. 2. There were three adverse cases registered against him on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Vellore Unit viz., Cr.No.589 of 2006; Cr.No.59 of 2008 and Cr.No.81 of 2008 under Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act 1955 and 403 I.PC. The ground case has been registered in Cr.No.111 of 2008 on the file of the same police station under the provisions of Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS)Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and 403, 420 and 511 IPC. It is stated that on 12. 2008 on a tip off, the Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID along with police party conducted vehicle check up near Cheyyar bus stand and at about 22.30 hours they noticed a TATA 407 van bearing Registration No.TN 32 S 3220 and stopped it on suspicion. While they checked it, they found 50 rice bags intended to be supplied to the poor through Public Distribution System. The accused Ganesan, who is the detenu herein seated inside the van was arrested and the case was registered. 3. Heard Mr. V. Parthiban, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 and Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for third respondent, on the grounds set out before this Court. 4. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the previous representation (undated) made by one Amsaveni wife of the detenu was rejected by the detaining authority on 22. 2008, in which the detaining authority has mentioned that on perusal of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Suppliers CID and connected records, the representation was rejected. But the report produced by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not furnished to the detenu in order to make effective representation which has miserably prejudiced his rights. On scrutiny of the said rejection proceedings, it appears that the letter sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Supplies CID on 12. 2008 was also perused with other materials, copy of which document is sought to be furnished to the detenu. On scrutiny of the said rejection proceedings, it appears that the letter sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Supplies CID on 12. 2008 was also perused with other materials, copy of which document is sought to be furnished to the detenu. We have called for the file maintained for this case and found the letter of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Supplies CID dated 12. 2008, which merely narrates about the dates and events as to the occurrence and the remand. Noteworthily, it does not contain any adverse remarks against the detenu. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that since the copy of the report dated 12. 2008 was not furnished to the detenu, the detention order gets vitiated on account of this lapse on the part of the detaining authority, as the valuable rights of the detenu was injured. We do not accept the said contention for the reason that the letter dated 12. 2008 does not show any adverse particulars or antecedents of the detenu so as to prejudice the mind of the detaining authority.. In such case, it is not necessary to furnish a copy. Only if the said letter contains anything against the interest of the detenu, then it can be stated that the copy of the document should be necessarily given to the detenu. 6. The next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu filed bail petition in Cr.M.P.No.59 of 2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vellore on 20.2.2008 and Cr.M.P.No.870 of 2008 on 25.02.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, and both the applications were pending at the time of passing the order of detention, but the said detention oder stating that the detenu has not filed any bail petition in the said cases, is without any application of mind and contrary to the facts. The detention order was passed on 23.02.2008. C.M.P.No.870 of 2008 was filed on 25.02.2008 i.e., after passing of the detention order. Hence it easily wriggles out from consideration. In the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, it is stated that Cr.M.P.No.59 of 2008 was filed for the ground case in Cr.No.111 of 2008, but it is wrong. The detention order was passed on 23.02.2008. C.M.P.No.870 of 2008 was filed on 25.02.2008 i.e., after passing of the detention order. Hence it easily wriggles out from consideration. In the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, it is stated that Cr.M.P.No.59 of 2008 was filed for the ground case in Cr.No.111 of 2008, but it is wrong. Actually Cr.M.P.No.639 of 2008 was filed for bail in the said Cr.No. As far as Cr.M.P.No.639 of 2008 is concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar, granted bail to the detenu on 12. 2008 itself prior to the passing of the detention order. Hence as on the date of passing of detention order no bail application was pending filed by the detenu. In this context, there is nothing wrong on the part of the detaining authority to mention that the detenu is very likely of his coming out on bail by filing bail applications. 7. There were two more adverse cases pending in Cr.No.55 of 2008 and 81 of 2008. The petitioner had not filed any bail application and there is every likelyhood for him to file bail application at the time of passing of detention order. Hence there could be no contention of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 8. Another leaf of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are material variations at the time of translating the detention order into Tamil which has misled the detenu, putting him in dark as to the avenue upon which he has to get remedy. In the detention order in English version it is stated as follows: "Any representation that is made by him will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board for consideration of his case and representation under Section 10 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980." While the above said version is translated, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner it conveys meaning that the representation will be considered by the State Governmnet and the case records will be placed before the State Advisory Board for consideration under Section 10 of the said Act. He interprets Tamil version that it gives meaning that the representation will be considered and retained by the State Government but the other records will be placed under Section 10 of the Act, before the Advisory Board. 9. We do not find any reason to axe-down the contention but find considerable force in the contention. When the English version is found to be in order, the translated version in Tamil would certainly convey the meaning that the representation and the rejection order may not be placed before the Advisory Board. If the Tamil version gives the impression in the mind of the detenu that his representation and the rejection order passed thereon were retained by the Government and not placed before the Advisory Board, he could not furnish his representation in an effective manner which would miserably prejudiced the valuable rights of the detenu. We are of the considered view that the Tamil version contains the meaning that the government would consider the representation and the records would be furnished to the Advisory Board. When an identical question arose before this Court in H.C.P.No.389 of 2008 [Tmt. Jyothi @ Lingajyothi vs. State and others], this Bench passed an Order on 7. 2008 that the discrepancy in the translated Tamil version would affect the rights of the detenu by preventing him from sending effective representation. The Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision in Devarajan vs. State etc., & another [1999 (I) L.W. (Crl.) 339] observed the same principles in A. Thambusamy v. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District and another, [ 1999 (III) CTC 628 ] that the omission in the Tamil translation as regards the placing of representation before the Advisory Board will certaininly prejudice the right of the detnu. In such a view of the matter, on this ground alone, the detention order gets vitiated and thereby the detention order deserves to be quashed. 10. In fine, the Habeas corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 23.02.2008 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.