Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the detenu himself. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.849/2013 dated 29.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station, Crime No.2437 of 2012 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station, Crime No.2463 of 2012 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 3. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Crime No.1099 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station in Crime No.1127 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that Tamil versions of 1st page of FIR in Crime No.1099 of 2013, 4th adverse case and the sketch in respect of Crime No.1127 of 2013, ground case, which are annexed at Page Nos.35 and 69 of the booklet respectively 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. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. From a perusal of the booklet at Page Nos.35 & 69, it is seen that though the detaining authority has relied on the FIR of Crime No.1099 of 2013 and sketch drawn for Crime No.1127 of 2013, both documents, though placed in English versions, have not been furnished to the detenu in the vernacular version. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely 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, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Appunu @ Venkatesh, S/o.Baskar, made in BDFGISSV No.849/2013 dated 29.08.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.