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 Memo No.923/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 07.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. CCB.X. Crime No.243/2012 51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act 1957 and 292(2)(a) IPC 2. CCB.X. Crime No.244/2012 51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) IPC 3. CCB.X. Crime No.245/2012 51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 03.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Team X, Video Piracy Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Police in Crime No.349/2013 for offences under Sections 52(A), 68(A), 51 r/w 63 & 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) 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, 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. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the English and Tamil version of the detention order is extracted herein. “3. ... In a similar case registered u/s 51 r/w 63 Copyright Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) IPC registered in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.75/2012 bail was granted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Hence, I infer that there is very likely of his coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch X Cr.No.349/2013, since in similar cases bails are granted by the courts after the lapse of time. ...'' “TAMIL” 6. Hence, I infer that there is very likely of his coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch X Cr.No.349/2013, since in similar cases bails are granted by the courts after the lapse of time. ...'' “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority, in the English version, while placing reliance on the similar case consideration, has inferred that the detenu is likely to come out on bail in Central Crime Branch Crime No.349/2013; whereas, in the Tamil version, it is inferred that the detenu will file a bail application in Central Crime Branch Crime No.349/2013 and come out on bail. When, in the English version, it is inferred that the detenu will come out on bail in Crime No.349/2013, in the Tamil version, it is translated such that the detenu will file a bail application to come out on bail. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, KADHAR RAZOOL made in BDFGISSV No.923/2013 dated 07.09.2013, 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 required in connection with any other case.