Judgment ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. The petitioner is the cousin sister of the detenu by name Puttu @ Manivel, who is detained as a “Goonda” under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, immoral Traffic Offenders, Band Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by order dated 8. 2009, which is challenged in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the confession statement, two cell phones, cash of Rs. 200/- and one soori knife were recovered from the detenu whereas, as per the mahazar, only one cell phone was recovered. He also submitted that the name of the informant in respect of the ground case is wrongly mentioned as Rathinavel in the first information report instead of Selvam and the Detraining Authority had not applied his mind to the same while passing the order of detention and therefore the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 4. We perused the entire materials available on record. Totally six adverse cases and the ground case have been registered against the detenu./ The ground case was committed by the detenu on 17. 2009. On that day, the complainant by name Selvam had gone to Hosur to attend to his personal work. After finishing his word, when he was returning to Hosur bus stand to go to his village, the detenu suddenly came near him and by threatening the complainant with dire consequences, snatched away a cell phone worth Rs. 3,000/- and cash of Rs. 200/-from him. Thereafter, on the complaint given by the complainant, a case in Crime No. 538 of 2008 was registered against the detenu for offences under Sections 384 and 392 I.P.C. We perused the confession statement of the detenu, which is available at page No. 108 of the booklet. It is seen from the confession statement that two cell phones, cash of Rs. 200/- and a soori knife were recovered from the detenu and the statement of one of the witnesses, who was present at the time of preparing the mahazar, which is available at page No. III, also shows that two cell phones, cash of Rs. It is seen from the confession statement that two cell phones, cash of Rs. 200/- and a soori knife were recovered from the detenu and the statement of one of the witnesses, who was present at the time of preparing the mahazar, which is available at page No. III, also shows that two cell phones, cash of Rs. 200/-and a soori knife were recovered from the detenu. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that one cell phone, cash of Rs. 200/-and a soori knife were recovered from the detenu. Therefore there is contradiction between the confession statement and the statement of one of the witnesses to the preparation of mahazar on the other hand, regarding the number of cell phones recovered, which would definitely vitiate the order of detention on the ground of nonapplication of mind. 5. As far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz., the name of the informant in respect of the ground case is wrongly mentioned as Rathinavel in the first information report instead of Selvam, is concerned, we perused the first information report, which is available at page No.98 of the booklet. It is seen from the same that the name or the complainant in respect of the ground case is mentioned as Rathinavel whereas, the person who actually gave the complaint is one Selvam. This would also amount to non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also affirms the same. Consequently, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on the above two grounds and accordingly it is set aside The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forth with, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.