Judgment :- K.N. BASHA, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Ramachandran, has come forward with this petition challenging the order of detention dated 02.12.2011 slapped on her husband branding him as Goonda. 2. Mr. S. Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that though he has raised several other grounds, he is mainly taking the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining as in the grounds of detention it is stated that the remand period was said to have been extended up to 06.12.2011, but a perusal of the remand report in the Booklet served on the detenu reveals that the remand was extended till 08.12.2011 and not till 06.12.2011. Therefore, it is contended that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind of the detaining authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of such contention, would also place reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Karthik V. The Commissioner of Police, etc. & another reported in 2002 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 543. 3. Per contra, Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that the discrepancy pointed out would only amount to a typographical or clerical error and the same would not amount to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It is contended that such typographical error would not amount to non-application of mind and as such, the detention order cannot be stated to be vitiated. In support of such contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would place reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.2330 of 2002 dated 05.08.2003 (Mrs. Sudha V. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.) 4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned detention order and grounds of detention. 5. Sudha V. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.) 4. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned detention order and grounds of detention. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that at the inner page No.4 it is stated that the detenu was arrested and his period of remand was further extended upto 06.12.2011, whereas, the Booklet served on the detenu containing remand extension order dated 24.11.2011 reveals that it was stated in the said order that the remand was extended till 08.12.2011 and as such, it is very clear that a contradictory statement made in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a feeble attempt to explain such discrepancy stating that the said discrepancy was occurred only due to a typographical error and such an error would not amount to non-application of mind and also placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.2330 of 2002 dated 05.08.2003 (Mrs. Sudha V. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.). 6. A perusal of the decision cites supra, relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would disclose that this Court in that particular case on the basis of materials available on record in the said case has taken a view that every minor error in the order would not justify the inference of non-application of mind. A perusal of the said unreported decision would further reveal that in the said case, there is a discrepancy between Tamil and English versions of the grounds of detention order in respect of mentioning the definition of Section 2(f) of the Goondas Act and as such, the learned Judges have taken a view that the said discrepancy would not amount to a major discrepancy and the said minor discrepancy would not amount to non-application of mind. However, as far as the case on hand is concerned, it is needless to state that the date of remand extension is vital and important factor which would weigh the mind of the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction before passing an order of detention. 7. However, as far as the case on hand is concerned, it is needless to state that the date of remand extension is vital and important factor which would weigh the mind of the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction before passing an order of detention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in a similar matter in Karthik V. The Commissioner of Police, etc. & another reported in 2002 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 543, wherein, there was a discrepancy in respect of date of extension of remand of the detenu and by placing reliance on an earlier decision, this Court has taken a view that such discrepancy cannot be brushed aside on the ground of typographical error and the same would amount to non-application of mind and thereby quashed the detention order. The relevant para of the said decision has to be incorporated hereunder : “2. In the grounds of detention (both in English version and in Tamil version), the Detaining Authority has stated that on the detenu being produced before the remand court on 23.6.1999, the court remanded him till 5.7.1999. However, the remand order available at page 41 of the booklet furnished to the detenu would show that the remand was from 23.6.1999 till 7.7.1999. There has been a series of judgments of this court that when a statement made by the detaining in the grounds of detention is contrary to the records available, then it would amount to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the statement made in the grounds of detention that the remand was till 5.7.1999 is a typographical error and instead of 7.7.1999, it has been wrongly typed as 5.7.1999. In the judgment of this Court reported in S. Chelladurai Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1992 (1) Crimes 271 ), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that any discrepancy pointed out cannot be explained as due to typographical error. In the judgment of this Court reported in S. Chelladurai Nadar V. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1992 (1) Crimes 271 ), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that any discrepancy pointed out cannot be explained as due to typographical error. In view of the law laid down by this court, on the lines indicated above, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the grounds of non-application of mind.” The principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also admittedly there is a glaring discrepancy in respect of the date of extension of remand as it is clearly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the remand was extended till 06.12.2011, whereas, in the extension of the remand order, it is stated that the remand was extended up to 08.12.2011 and such mistake cannot be merely stated to be a typographical error and the same would definitely amount to a total non-application of mind and as a result, the detention order is vitiated. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the detention order dated 02.12.2011 passed in detention Memo No.644/BDFGISSV/2011 on the file of the second respondent herein is hereby set aside and the detenu, Ramachandran, S/o. Ramasamy, is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case or proceedings.