Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father 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. 1226/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 03.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-5 Sholavaram Police Station Crime No. 337 of 2013 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307 and 302 IPC 2. M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station, Crime No. 1216 of 2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 30.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1 Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No. 1776 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 323, 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 30.09.2013 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 30.09.2013 annexed in Page No.186 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 187 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus:- "A1 to A2 produced at 2.30 p.m. Grounds of arrest informed. No complaints against police. Remanded to judicial custody till 11.10.2013." The Tamil version reads thus:- (Tamil) 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 186 and 187 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. Though in the English version of the remand order, the time of production of the accused is mentioned as 2.30 p.m., the same is omitted to be mentioned in the Tamil version. Though in the English version of the remand order, the time of production of the accused is mentioned as 2.30 p.m., the same is omitted to be mentioned 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, Sasikumar made in BDFGISSV No. 1226 of 2013 dated 03.10.2013, 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.