JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu's brother is the petitioner herein. He 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.818/2013, dated 27.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station Crime No.356/2011 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 324 & 307 I.P.C. 2. T-6 Avadi Police Station Crime No. 1498/2013 341, 384 & 506 (ii) I.P.C. 3. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station Crime No.1000/2013 341, 294 (b) and 392 r/w 506 (ii) I.P.C. 4. T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station Crime No.356/2011 341, 294 (b), 323 & 307 I.P.C. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-6 Avadi Police Station in Crime No. 1620/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 307, 427, 392, 506 (ii) r/w 397 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 remand order dated 13.08.2013 which has deprived the detenu in making 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 remand order dated 13.08.2013 with the Tamil version would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order, at page 93 of the booklet, reads thus: "Marginally noted accused produced on 13.08.2013 by 7.20 p.m. Grounds of arrest informed. Legal Aid explained. Right to consult an advocate also explained. Accused is not an juvenile. No complaints against police. No apparent injuries found on the accused. I have perused the materials and the materials discloses cognizable offences. Hence accused remanded to Judicial Custody till 27.08.2013. ” The Tamil version of the remand order dt. 13.08.2013, which finds a place at page No: 94 of the typed set, reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. A sentence that, “Accused is not an juvenile” which is found in the English version, is not found in the Tamil version itself. ” The Tamil version of the remand order dt. 13.08.2013, which finds a place at page No: 94 of the typed set, reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. A sentence that, “Accused is not an juvenile” which is found in the English version, is not found in the Tamil version itself. It is completely omitted. Thus, when there is discrepancy between English and Tamil versions in the remand order, 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, Subbu @ Tamilmani, S/o. Maanraj, made in No: 818/2013 dated 27.08.2013 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.