Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in No. 1147/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 27.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-1 Sembium Police Station, Crime No. 882 of 2011 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC 2. M-2 M.M. Colony Police Station Crime No. 627 of 2011 120(b), 392 IPC 3. K-1 Sembium Police Station Crime No. 412 of 2012 341, 324, 506 (ii) IPC 4. K-9 Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1397 of 2013 341, 384, 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallore Police Station in Crime No. 2018 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that in the Special Report furnished by the sponsoring authority found at page 104 of the booklet, the Crime number which is referred as Cr. No. 1525 of 2013 is not connected to the detenu's case and it would cause confusion in the mind of the detenu, thereby disabling him to make an effective representation in respect of his grievance. Therefore, he would contend that 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. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet at Page 104 pertaining to the Special Report, it is seen that the Sponsoring authority has mentioned the Crime Number as Cr. No. 1525 of 2013 in the Reference column, which, on verification reveals that it is not connected to the detenu's case. Therefore, the material furnished to the detenu would cause confusion in the mind of the detenu, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Therefore, the material furnished to the detenu would cause confusion in the mind of the detenu, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Kumar made in No. 1147/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 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.