Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.878/2013 dated 02.09.2013 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Crime No.2367 of 2008 Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 2. S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station, Crime No.141 of 2012 Section 302 r/w 34 IPC 3. E-1, Mylapore Police Station Crime No.618 of 2013 Sections 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 4. E-3, Teynampet Police Station Crime No.2379 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station in Crime No.2394 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 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 there is a variation in translation of the remand order dated 24.08.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu of 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 comparison of English version of remand order dated 24.08.2013 annexed in it with the Tamil translation annexed in the booklet at Page No.87 would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following: "Accused produced on 24.08.2013 at 06:15 P.M. Grounds of arrest legal aid explained. No complaints against police. Remanded till 06.09.2013.” the Tamil version informs thus, "TAMIL” 6. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.87 and 89, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the words “legal aid explained” are not found translated in Tamil. Remanded till 06.09.2013.” the Tamil version informs thus, "TAMIL” 6. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.87 and 89, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the words “legal aid explained” are not found translated in Tamil. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil version, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and the same, which amounts to an 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, Palani @ Bend Palani, S/o.Perumal made in BDFGISSV No.878/2013 dated 02.09.2013, 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. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.