Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 30.10.2007, whereby, her husband has been detained as ‘Bootlegger’ as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the copy of the bail application in English available at page NO.103 of the Booklet as well as the translated copy of the same in Tamil annexed at Page No.107 and pointed out that in the English version, it has been mentioned that the detenu was found in possession of 105 litres of rectified spirit, whereas, in the translated copy, the quantity of the contraband is mentioned as 125 litres. According to the learned counsel, this material contradiction has not been taken note of by the Detaining Authority, indicating non-application of mind on his part and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the document concerned is the bail petition filed by the detenu himself and, while giving translated copy of the same, a typographical error has crept in with regard to quantity of the contraband and, on that score, it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority failed to apply his mind while arriving at the subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu. 4. On a perusal of the materials available before us, we find that all other particulars relating to the detenu have been correctly translated except the quantity and therefore, accepting the explanation offered by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the aforesaid contention is rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at page No.25 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu at column No.6, overwriting has been found and such overwriting led to confusion in the mind of the detenu and thereby he was prejudiced in making an effective representation. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though overwriting has been made at column No.6, the same has been done on the document with a view to make it legible and motive cannot be attributed for such performance. 7. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though overwriting has been made at column No.6, the same has been done on the document with a view to make it legible and motive cannot be attributed for such performance. 7. We have perused the document available at page No.25 of the booklet and we find that though there is overwriting, no correction of sentence has been made and it appears that the same has been done only for the purpose of making it legible; therefore, we do not find any merit in this contention as well. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed.