Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the husband of the petitioner viz., Bishop S.Anandaraj, son of Sigamani, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda 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. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in No.69/2007 dated 22. 2007 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu Bishop S.Anandaraj, son of Sigamani, now detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3. 1. According to the prosecution, the detenu and his associates cheated number of persons under the guise of offering construction work and collected huge money to the tune of Rs.20 Crores as EMD and also threatened them with dire consequences. Prosecution case is as follows :- 3. 2. The detenu Bishop S.Anandaraj, with an alleged mission to construct dwelling houses for the poor public in all States in India on free of cost by getting foreign aides, formed a Trust in the name of "M/s. Molin Mission Assembly of Miracle Church" along with his associates. The detenu is the Founder of the Trust and one Suresh Kumar, adopted son of the detenu, is the Secretary of the Trust. One Sakthi @ Sakthivel is the Engineer of the Trust and V.Krishnan, A.Kumar and Paul Mayan are the Agents of the Trust. The modus operandi of the detenu and his associates was to advertise in major dailies about their object of constructing dwelling houses for the poor public free of cost using foreign aids. The gullible builders, lured by the advertisement, approached the detenu and his associates and they were impressed upon that foreign aid is going to be pumped in the project and poor people will be offered dwelling houses free of cost. The detenu and his men churned out this story to every builder, who fell prey. The gullible builders, lured by the advertisement, approached the detenu and his associates and they were impressed upon that foreign aid is going to be pumped in the project and poor people will be offered dwelling houses free of cost. The detenu and his men churned out this story to every builder, who fell prey. As Lump sum security deposit, every builder was forced to part with a sizable amount of money, running into several lakhs of rupees. When some of the builders confronted the detenu, they were given cheques, which when deposited bounced back. After their patience ran out, other builders approached the detenu and his associates only to be rebuked. Complaints were filed by so many contractors all over the state of Tamil Nadu and cases were registered in Crime Nos.72/2006, 272/2006, 297/2006, 302/2006, 418/2006, 419/2006 and 420/2006 on the file of Mamallapuram Police Station, Chennai City CCB X Crime Nos.405/2006 and 487/2006, and DCB Ramnad District Crime Nos.1/2006 and 40/2006 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC r/w 34 IPC IPC. Since number of persons were cheated not only in the State of Tamil Nadu but also from the neighbouring States, the Director General of Police transferred the further investigation of all the cases to Crime Branch CID for specialized investigation and accordingly, Mr.S.Subbiah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB CID, Kancheepuram Range took up the cases for investigation. He has received 241 petitions against the detenu and his associates. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Kancheepuram Range arrested the detenu on 19.l2.2006 and recorded his confession statement. Based on the confession given by the detenu, number of cars, agreements and documents running to several lakhs were recovered. 3. 3. According to the Detaining Authority, the detenu is habitually committing crimes and has cheated 241 persons under the guise of offering construction work by abusing and misusing religious position as Bishop and collected huge money to the tune of Rs.20 Crores as Earnest Money Deposit. He has thus hurt the religious sentiments of the people also and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. The detaining authority, having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order. 4. He has thus hurt the religious sentiments of the people also and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. The detaining authority, having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention on the grounds that .(i) defective translation of the remand order as to the statement that he was beaten up by the police; and .(ii) non application of mind on the part of the Government in not considering the specific plea made by the detenu that he was beaten up by the police, while passing the order of rejection. 1. The remand order dated 8. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, reads hereunder: "Accused produced at 5.00 p.m. ground of arrest and free legal aid explained. Accused stated that he was beating by the police. No external injury found on his body. Remanded till 18. 2006." On the other hand, the translated copy of the said order is stated as hereunder: 5. 2. A plain reading between the original order of remand and the vernacular translation of the remand order makes a wide difference in the sense that when the original order speaks to the effect that the accused had stated that he was beating (beaten) by the police, which would mean that he was beaten by the police, in the vernacular language found at page 91, it was stated that no external injury was found on his body. i.e. "vjphpapd; clypy; fhak; VJk; ,y;iy/" Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned order of detention suffers from incorrect translation of the remand order dated 8. 2006. 5. 3. With regard to the second ground, it is true that the detenu made a representation to the Government dated 4. 2007 making a specific plea that he was beaten by the police. The Government, while disposing of the said representation dated 4. 2007 by proceedings dated 14. 2007, without taking note of the original order of remand dated 8. 2006 found at page 89, has only taken note of the Tamil version found at page 91 that the accused did not make any complaint against the police when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand. 2007 by proceedings dated 14. 2007, without taking note of the original order of remand dated 8. 2006 found at page 89, has only taken note of the Tamil version found at page 91 that the accused did not make any complaint against the police when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand. Therefore, failure to consider the original order of remand dated 8. 2006, while disposing of the representation of the detenu dated 4. 2007, reflects non application of mind on the part of the Government. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on both the grounds. Accordingly, the order of detention dated 22. 2007 is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu Bishop S.Anandaraj is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.