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 the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1419/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 23.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-3, Puzhal Police Station Crime No.736/2010 379 @ 302, 201 & 379 IPC 2. M-4, Redhills Police Station Crime No.1916/2013 392, 397 IPC 3. M-3, Puzhal Police Station Crime No.1688/2013 392, 397 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 05.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, M-3 Puzhal Police Station in Crime No.1692/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 397 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 05.10.2013 annexed in pages 134 and 135 of 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 05.10.2013 annexed in Page No.134 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 135 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: “Accused produced at 5.00 pm. Grounds of arrest & legal aid explained. No complaints of ill-treatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 18.10.2013. ” The Tamil version reads thus: “TAMIL” 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 05.10.2013 found at pages 134 and 135 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'legal aid explained' is mentioned, it is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order dated 05.10.2013 found at pages 134 and 135 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the English version of the remand order, the aspect 'legal aid explained' is mentioned, it is omitted to be translated in the Tamil version. 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,Murugan made in BDFGISSV No.1419/2013 dated 23.10.2013, 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. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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.