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 C.M.P. No.19/Goonda/2013/M1 dated 06.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Namakkal Police Station Cr.No.1653/2011 324 & 307 IPC 2. Avaniyapuram Police Station Crime No.24/2012 147, 148, 341, 307 IPC & 25 (1-A) Arms Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 29.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station in Crime No.766/2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 342, 307 and 302 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 31.07.2013 annexed in the booklet, 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 booklet and a comparison of the English version of the remand order dated 31.07.2013 annexed in Page No.104 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 105 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order is dated as 31.07.2013 and it reads thus: "All the 3 accused produced before the Court at. 4.10 p.m. No compliance of ill treatment. Remand to the judicial custody till 14.8.2013. ” The Tamil version, which is undated, reads thus: (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 104 and 107 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. The English version is dated as 31.07.2013 whereas the Tamil version is undated. In the English version, it is stated 'All the 3 accused produced before the Court at 4.10 P.M.', in the Tamil version it is only stated that ("TAMIL") Similarly in the Tamil version, there is mention that ' The case was explained in detail'. Such a statement is missing in the English version. In the English version, it is stated 'All the 3 accused produced before the Court at 4.10 P.M.', in the Tamil version it is only stated that ("TAMIL") Similarly in the Tamil version, there is mention that ' The case was explained in detail'. Such a statement is missing in the English version. 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, Kasi @ Kasiraja, S/o. Duraisamy, made in C.M.P. No.19/Gonnda/2013/M1 dated 06.09.2013, 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.