JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "DANGEROUS PERSON" and "GOONDA" as contemplated under sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No.10 of 2010) and detained under order of the 3rd respondent passed in No.19/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2013, dated 04.10.2013. 2. The detenu's previous involvement in criminal cases is as follows:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime Number Sections of Law Status of the Case 1. Odiansalai Police Station Crime No.80 of 2008, dated 24.04.2008 Boy Missing @ 302, 380, 201 IPC r/w. 34 IPC Under Trial 2. Grand Bazaar Police Station, Crime No.204 of 2008 Dated 21.04.2008 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC r/w. 34 IPC Under Trial 3. Grand Bazaar Police Station, Crime No.361 of 2009 Dated 24.06.2009 399, 402 IPC and 4 of Explosive substance Act, 1908 Under Trial 4. Mudaliarpet Police Station, Crime No.50 of 2010 Dated 17.02.2010 25(1-a) of Arms Act Acquittal 5. Mudaliarpet Police Station, Crime No.31 of 2013 Dated 26.02.2013 392 IPC r/w. 34 IPC Under Trial 3. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu committed offences under Sections 302, 380, 201, 147, 148, 341, 399, 402 and 392 IPC related to the activities that endanger human life, personal safety and property of others which are punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu Perumal Raja had indulged in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order and clamped the order of detention on him in exercise of the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 13.09.2013 of Home Department, Puducherry. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that Vernacular version of Remand Report as well as Arrest Memo in Crime No.204 of 2008 [second adverse case] have not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making representation for his redressal and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. We have heard Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [Pondicherry] on the above submission and perused the records. 6. 5. We have heard Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [Pondicherry] on the above submission and perused the records. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Vernacular version of Remand Report as well as Arrest Memo in Crime No.204 of 2008 [second adverse case] have not been furnished to the detenu. When we verified the booklet, it is seen that the detaining authority has failed to furnish the Remand Report as well as Arrest Memo in respect of Crime No.204 of 2008 [second adverse case] in vernacular language. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. 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. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the third respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Perumal Raja, S/o. Krishnamoorthy, made in No.19/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2013, dated 04.10.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, 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.