Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 332 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. PEW, Ambathur, Crime No. 174 of 2011 Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of TNP Act 1937 r/w 468 and 471 IPC 2. PEW, Triplicane, Crime No. 78 of 2011 Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act 3. PEW, Ambathur, Crime No. 1042 of 2012 Sections 4(1)(aa), 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of R.S. Rules, 2000 4. PEW, Madhavaram, Crime No. 346 of 2012 Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) of TNP Act 1937 r/w 468, 471 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Madhavaram Unit in Crime No. 347 of 2013 for offences under Sections 4(1)(a), 4 (1-A) of TNP Act (Transporting). Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copy of the document, annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu to make his effective representation. He has also submitted that the said act of detaining authority is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and other, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 59 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. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page Nos. 55 and 56 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of documents, which is a copy of FIR registered in respect of 4th adverse case, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. 6. 55 and 56 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of documents, which is a copy of FIR registered in respect of 4th adverse case, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal @ Gogi vs. Union of India and others (supra) has been pleased to hold as under:- "3. It appears that the appellant had asked for certain copies of the documents, which admittedly were there with the respondent – Union of India. Copies of the documents were supplied, but the same were not legible. This position is also apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this case to go into the question whether these documents were relevant or material. 4. In view of the fact that the copies of the documents were, in fact, supplied at the request of the appellant, but the copies supplied were illegible, we are of the opinion, that the safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed. In that view of the matter the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, is set aside. The Order of detention dated June 9, 1988 is quashed and the appellant be set at liberty unless he is required in respect of any other proceedings." 7. Thus, in the light of the above settled position, in view of supply of illegible copy of custody order and also considering the fact that safeguards provided by the Constitution have not been followed, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Gajendiran, S/o Somu Thevar, made in BDFGISSV No. 332 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.