Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in S.C. No; 40/2013 dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Hosur Town P.S.Crime No.81/2013 392 I.P.C. 2. Hosur P.S. Crime No.425/2013 392 I.P.C. 3. Sipcot P.S. Cr. No: 655/2013 392 I.P.C. 4. Sipcot P.S. Crime No1032/2013 392 I.P.C. 5. HUDCO P.S. Crime No.1320/2013 392 I.P.C. 6. Hudco P.S. Cr. No: 1338/2013 392 I.P.C. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, in Crime No.1340/2013 for an offence under Section 392 IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is variation in translation of the detention order itself which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A careful scrutiny of the English version of the detention order with the Tamil version would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the detention order, last portion of the para No: 5, reads thus : " A detention order under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevetion of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Foresh Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offnders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grbbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) has been made against Thiru. Mahamooab Basha, S/o.Thiru. Babaji, vide Order S.C. No: 40/2013, dated 30.09.2013 ” Para. 5 of the Tamil version, which finds a place at page No: 19 of the typed set, reads thus : “TAMIL” 6. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation while mentioning the name of the detenu itself. While in the English version it is correctly stated as Mahaboob Basha, son of Babaji, in the tamil version, the detenu's name is stated as Karamath son of Babaji. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation while mentioning the name of the detenu itself. While in the English version it is correctly stated as Mahaboob Basha, son of Babaji, in the tamil version, the detenu's name is stated as Karamath son of Babaji. The very material fact namely the name of the detenu itself is wrongly stated in the tamil version. Thus, this variation in the detention order itself by mentioning a wrong name as detenu's name would vitiate the order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Babaji, made in S.C. No: 40/2013 dated 30.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is otherwise required in connection with any other case.