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 the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1604/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.487/2013 457 and 380 IPC 2. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1179/2013 457 and 380 IPC 3. V-3 J.J.Nagar Police Station Crime No.774/2013 380 IPC 4. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1335/2013 457 and 380 IPC 5. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1825/2013 457 and 380 IPC 6. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1835/2013 457 and 380 IPC 7. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1844/2013 457 and 380 IPC 8. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1986/2013 457 and 380 IPC 9. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.2014/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No.2044/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) 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 19.10.2013 annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned. Further, the remand extension order relied on by the detaining authority was not enclosed in the booklet. Therefore, on both these grounds, 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 19.10.2013 annexed in Page No.489 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in Page No.491 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused produced on 19.10.2013 at 5.35 pm. No complaint against police. Offence and right to engage counsel explained. Records perused and satisfied the reasons for remand. Remanded to judicial custody till 31.10.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “LANGUAGE” 6. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused produced on 19.10.2013 at 5.35 pm. No complaint against police. Offence and right to engage counsel explained. Records perused and satisfied the reasons for remand. Remanded to judicial custody till 31.10.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: “LANGUAGE” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 489 and 491 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated 'Offence and right to engage counsel explained.' But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to 'Offence details explained'. The aspect 'right to engage counsel' is not translated in the Tamil version of the remand order. 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. Further, in the gounds of detention, though the detaining authority has mentioned about the remand extension order, he has not enclosed the same in the booklet. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Johnson, S/o. Manuvel made in Memo No.1604/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.11.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.