Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Detenu himself is the petitioner herein. The detenu has been branded as a Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 141/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 06.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. PEW-1, Karur Crime No. 206 of 2011 4(1)(a) 4(1)(i) 4(1)(k) 4(1-A) & 24, 24 (A)(C) TNP Act & 464, 465 and 471 r/w. 468 IPC 2. PEW, Madurantakam Crime No. 525 of 2012 4(1)(aa) 4(1)(i) 4(1)(h) 4(1)(k) & 24 TNP Act r/w. 272 and 420 IPC 3. PEW, Chengalpattu Crime No. 188 of 2013 4(1)(aaa) 4(1)(h) 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w. 7, 13, 14 of Rs. Rules 2000 and 420, 468, 471, 473 and 475 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.09.2013 by PEW, Chengalpattu in Crime No. 198 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w. 6 & 11 of RS Rules, 2000 Transporting and 420, 468, 473 and 475 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 06.09.2013 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 06.09.2013 annexed in Page No.161 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 163 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus:- "A1 and A2 Accused produced on 06.09.2013 at 5.30 pm. Grounds of arrest & Legal aid explained. No complaints against police. Remanded till 20.09.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: TAMIL 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 161 and 163 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated Grounds of arrest and legal aid explained. No complaints against police. Remanded till 20.09.2013.” The Tamil version reads thus: TAMIL 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 161 and 163 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated Grounds of arrest and legal aid explained. But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to Grounds of arrest. The aspect 'legal aid' 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. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Ramesh @ Kumar @ Saravanakumar, S/o Chinnakannu made in BDFGISSV No. 141 of 2013 dated 06.11.2013, 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.