Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner himself is the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 744/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 20.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 163 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 2. N-3, Muthialpet Police Station, Crime No. 158 of 2013 379 IPC 3. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 593 of 2013 380 IPC 4. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 686 of 2013 379 IPC 5. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 823 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 6. H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Crime No. 309 of 2013 379 IPC 7. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 913 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 8. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 801 of 2013 379 IPC 9. M-3 Puzhal Police Station, Crime No. 789 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 10. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 943 of 2013 454 and 380 IPC 11. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 966 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 12. C-5, Kothavalchavadi Police Station, Crime No.312 of 2013 454 and 380 IPC 13. M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Crime No. 897 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 14. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1096 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 15. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1185 of 2013 379 IPC 16. M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Crime No. 1076 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 17. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1256 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 18. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1263 of 2013 457 and 511 IPC 19. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1271 of 2013 379 IPC 20. H-6, RK Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 818 of 2013 379 IPC 21. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 1159 of 2013 379 IPC 22. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 1182 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 23. M-4, Redhills Police Station, Crime No. 1271 of 2013 379 IPC 20. H-6, RK Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 818 of 2013 379 IPC 21. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 1159 of 2013 379 IPC 22. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No. 1182 of 2013 457 and 380 IPC 23. B-1, North Beach Police Station, Crime No. 571 of 2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-8, Sathangadu Police Station in Crime No. 1076 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w. 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 20.07.2013 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 20.07.2013 annexed in Page No. 340 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in page 341 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus:- "Accused 1 and 2 produced at 5.00 P.M. Grounds of arrest and Legal aid informed. No complaints of ill treatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 02.08.2013." The Tamil version reads thus: (Tamil) 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 340 and 341 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 informed. 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. 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, Selvam @ Kotta Selvam @ Kottuva Selvam, S/o Sridhar, made in BDFGISSV No. 744 of 2013, dated 20.08.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, as the detenu is involved in more number of offences, it is for the prosecution 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.