Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The Petitioner, who is the sister of the detenu, challenges the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent dated 212. 2008. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. A Persual of the records would show that the detenu had involved herself in ten adverse cases for an offence punishable under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, besides the ground case, which took place on 111. 2008. The impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority based on the materials placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority. However, on going through the records, we are able to see that though the Seizure and Destruction Mahazars were prepared on the spot, they contain the Crime Numbers even before registration of the F.I.R. But the fact is that the F.I.R. used to be registered only subsequent to the preparation of the mahazars. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Detaining Authority has not focussed his attention on this point and has passed the order of detention without application of mind. On this score alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 212. 2008. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless she is required in connection with any other case or cause.