Judgment ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent herein and made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No. 71/2009 dated 28. 2009, set aside the same and to produce the body of the detenu, Senthil Kumar, now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, challenges the order of detention passed against the detenu detaining him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, after he was identified as a “Goonda” , since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on two earlier occasions and that on 27. 2009, he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by demanding money form the complainant, Jothi, at knife point and also threw country bombs on the complainant and others, who were present there, which resulted in registration of the ground case in crime No. 430 of 2009 on the file of Walajabad Police station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 384 IPC. And Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Thereafter, the detenu was arrested by the investigating officer on 27. 2009 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, and remanded to judicial custody. 3. In view of the above, the sponsoring authority has satisfied that the detenu is a habitual offender and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present habeas corpus petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order of detention passed against the detenu by raising two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that, in the complaints preferred, by the complainants in respect of the two adverse cases and the ground case, as evident from page Nos. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order of detention passed against the detenu by raising two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that, in the complaints preferred, by the complainants in respect of the two adverse cases and the ground case, as evident from page Nos. 3, 43 and 87 of the Booklet respectively, the signature of the complainants were not found, due to which, the order of detention passed against the detenu gets vitiated. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the pages referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., page Nos. 3, 43 and 87 of the booklet, are the copies of the printed First Information Report in respect of the two adverse cases and the ground case respectively. He has further submitted that it is the usual practice that after receiving signature of the complainant in the original complaint, it was sent to the local Magistrate, who is having jurisdiction, for keeping records and it does not form part of the booklet and only the printed copies of the First Information Reports are supplied to the detenu. 7. We agree with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and reject the same. 8. Secondly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the investigating officer arrested the detenu on 27. 2009, he made a request on 27. 2009 to the Judicial Magistrate No.II Kancheepuram, for showing the formal arrest of the detenu in connection with the two adverse cases, as evident from page No. 23 of the booklet, but, the learned Magistrate passed the order only on 27. 2009. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigating officer, without waiting for the order of the learned Magistrate, showed the formal arrest of the detenu on 27. 2003, and therefore, it amounts to non application of mind, due to which, the order or detention passed against the detenu gets vitiated. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no rule to request the Magistrate to permit the investigating officer to make a formal arrest in respect of the adverse case and hence, there is nothing wrong in shoving the formal arrest of the detenu on 27. 2009. 10. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no rule to request the Magistrate to permit the investigating officer to make a formal arrest in respect of the adverse case and hence, there is nothing wrong in shoving the formal arrest of the detenu on 27. 2009. 10. We are unable to agree with the answer put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is no rule to request the Magistrate to permit the investigating officer to enforce a formal arrest in respect of the adverse cases. Once a request is made by the investigating officer to the learned Magistrate seeking necessary orders for making the formal arrest of the detenu in respect of the adverse cases, he should have waited for the orders from the learned Magistrate and after getting orders from the learned Magistrate, the investigating officer has to show the formal arrest of the detenu in respect of the adverse cases. But, in this case, the investigating officer, without doing so, shown the formal arrest of the detenu in respect of the adverse cases on 27. 2003, whereas the learned Magistrate passed orders granting permission to make formal arrest, of the detenu in respect of the adverse cases only on 23. 2009. Hence, we agree with the 2nd contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. On considering the materials, we find that there is every force in the 2nd contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other cases.