Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner himself is detenu who has been branded as a Goonda and detained by means of a detention order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. 421 of 2007 dated 012. 2008. .2. The facts of the Ground case go to the effect that on 10. 2007 at about 8.00 a.m., .while the complainant Mani was proceeding to his company by walk at Oragadam-Redhills Main Road near P.T.R. Kalyanamandapam, the detenu came in a motor cycle along with his confederate one Nanda @ Rajkumar, stopped it and alighted from it and by showing a paper to the complainant asked the address with the intention to commit crime and thereby he wrongfully restrained the complainant and suddenly inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of the complainant and when the complainant questioned, Nanda @ Nandakumar threatened him and took out a long Veecharuval from his back and snatched money from him. At the same time the petitioner also inserted his hand into the shirt pocket of the complainant and took away Rs.342/-. The said Nanda @ Nandakumar assaulted on the cheek of the complainant and snatched his wrist watch also. A case in Cr.No.778 was registered against them for the offences under Section 341, 323, 336, 392, 307, 397 and 506(2) I.P.C. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three pronged. We heard Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public prosecutor as to the contentions projected on behalf of the detenu. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the copies of remand orders passed by the respective courts were supplied to the detenu, the copies of those initial remand reports and orders passed thereon were not supplied to the detenu which has handicapped him in submitting his representation effectively. We are unable to accede to the contention for the reason that the detaining authority has properly applied his mind in considering the remand orders passed in Cr.Nos.756 of 2007, 764 of 2007 and 767 of 2007 besides the ground case in Cr.No.778 of 2007 and made up his mind before passing the order. He is expected to see whether there was valid remand at the time of passing of the detention order. Indisputably, it is clear that the detenu was in valid remand and hence the contention has no legs to stand. .5. He is expected to see whether there was valid remand at the time of passing of the detention order. Indisputably, it is clear that the detenu was in valid remand and hence the contention has no legs to stand. .5. The second contention on behalf of the detenu is as to the time of the arrest. It is stated that in Cr.No.778 of 2007, it is mentioned in the Arrest Report in column No.4 that the accused was taken into custody on 10. 2007 at 08.35 a.m. while the time of arrest has been referred as 15.15 hours on 110. 2007 which is a discrepancy and the detaining authority has miserably failed to call for explanation from the Sponsoring Authority which shows his non-application of mind in this regard. The contention looses its importance. On a perusal of the records, we are able to see that the detenu was arrested at 8.35 a.m. on 10. 2007 and he was taken to the scene of occurrence and other places for the purpose of investigation and recording confessional Statements and preparation of necessary observation and seizure mahazars and after those stages of the investigation, he was brought to the police station at 15.15 hours on that date. There is no discrepancy much less any error in the entries of Arrest Report and we are of the considered opinion that those entries do not call for any explanation to be obtained from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority. In this context the detaining authority has applied his mind, and the above contention has to be discountenanced. 6. Yet another argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation dated 12. 2008 which has been sent on behalf of the detenu was not considered properly because the rejection order dated 22.02.2008 does not contain the particulars as to the person to whom the fact of arrest was intimated. We do not find any substance in the contention. In the Arrest Memo, under Column No.12, it is mentioned that the fact of arrest was informed to one Lakshmi, mother of the detenu and the signature of the said Lakshmi in English is found in column titled as signature of the witness. It transpires that the said Lakshmi is none other than the wife of the detenu as evident from the contents of the rejection order. It transpires that the said Lakshmi is none other than the wife of the detenu as evident from the contents of the rejection order. Even though Lakshmi has wrongly been mentioned as mother of the detenu, in fact she is wife of the detenu. This error has no effect to vitiate the detention order. .7. One more contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the registration numbers of the vehicles, allegedly stolen by the detenu and his confederate vary in the records in Cr.Nos.764 of 2007 and 767 of 2007 and the detaining authority should have obtained clarification from the Sponsoring Authority and the lapse on his part indicates his non-application of mind on the matter. It is to be borne in mind that in the above said two cases and also in the ground case, he was arrested on 10. 2007 only. It is no doubt true that the records show variations in the registration numbers of the vehicles. But still the fact remains that the above two cases in Cr.No.764 of 207 and 767 of 2007 are the adverse cases and there is no discrepancy with regard to the ground case. Form No.91 prepared for Cr.No.764 and Seizure Mahazar prepared for the same Cr.No., show the Registration Numbers TN-20-AZ-4861 and TN-20-X-6922 respectively, which appear to be a discrepancy. As far as Cr.No.767 of 2007 is concerned, the Seizure Mahazar shows Registration No.TN-20-AZ-4861, while Form No.91 prepared for the same contains Registration No.TN-20-X-6922. These aspects may constitute a good ground for the detenu to contest the above said cases before the trial court. As far as the detaining authority is concerned, he has relied upon the records in the ground case in Cr.No.778 of 2007 and passed orders irrespective of the records in other Cr.Nos. It may also be stated that the Seizure Mahazar as well as Form No.91 as stated supra, are not the relevant documents for the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. As far as the ground case is concerned, the records were found to be in order by the detaining authority before passing detention order. Hence there is no error on the part of the detaining authority. The above said discrepancy even though apparently surfacing on record, does not vitiate the detention order. 8. As far as the ground case is concerned, the records were found to be in order by the detaining authority before passing detention order. Hence there is no error on the part of the detaining authority. The above said discrepancy even though apparently surfacing on record, does not vitiate the detention order. 8. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of law has been wrongly mentioned in the detention order as far as Cr.No.756 of 2007 is concerned. It is one among the adverse cases. In the observation mahazar prepared for the case in Cr.No.756 of 2007, the provisions of law quoted are for the offence under Sections 379, 392 I.P.C. While it is mentioned in the list of adverse cases in the detention order, it is mentioned as the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. alone and provision of law under Section 379 I.P.C. has been omitted. In our considered view it is not at all a discrepancy which would lead to a conclusion that there was non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. To put in other way, it could be observed that this trivial error in no way would prejudice the right of the detenu. So the detenu could not succeed on this ground also. 9. We have heard both sides and scrutinised the records carefully and we do not find any illegality much less infirmity in the detention order and the same is not at all vitiated on any of the grounds raised by the detenu. There is no need to quash the detention order impugned. We do not find any merit. 10. In fine the petition is dismissed.