Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 11.10.2013 made in Memo No.1286/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with the order issued by the Government in G.O.(D) No.120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2013 under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases : Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. T-1, Ambathur Police Station Crime No.894/2009 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 2. T-1, Ambathur Police Station Crime No.965/2009 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. T-1, Ambathur Police Station Crime No.128/2010 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC 4. T-1, Ambathur Police Station Crime No.154/2010 Section 379 IPC 5. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.57/2010 Sections 147, 148, 120 (B) IPC and Section 25 (1-A) of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w 149 IPC 6. T-1, Ambathur Police Station Crime No.1297/2013 Sections 461 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 02.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambathur Police Station in Crime No.1574/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. It is seen that the detenu was arrested on 04.10.2013 and is in remand. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this Habeas Corpus Petition. 4. The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this Habeas Corpus Petition. 4. The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel would point out that there is variation in the translation of the Arrest Report as could be found in pages 49 and 50 of the booklet, as regards the details pertaining to remand. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the English and Tamil version of the Arrest Report are extracted hereunder: Arrest Report under Section 62 Cr.P.C. 1. Offence and FIR Nos. Ambathur Police Station - Cr.No.1297/2013 u/s 461, 380 IPC 2. Date of Commission 09.08.2013 3. Name of persons arrested Venkatabalasubramanian @ Balasubramanian @ Ice, S/o.Kesavan, No.151, VI Cross Street, Thirumalaipriya Nagar, Pudur, Ambattur, Chennai-53. 4. Taken into custody. Whom and by whom, distance from station 04.10.2013 at 07.00 hrs, near Ambattur Canara Bank by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Ambattur. 5. Date & Hour of bringing to Station 04.10.2013 at 11.00 hours 6. How disposed of with Date & Hour of disposal Sent for remand (“TAMIL”) 7. A reading of the above would show that the detaining authority has relied on the Arrest Report, the English and Tamil version of which are found in pages 49 and 50 respectively, of the booklet, wherein there is variation in translation with regard to the details pertaining to 'remand'. In the English version, against the column 'How disposed of with date & Hour of disposal', it is plainly stated 'sent for remand'. Whereas, in the Tamil version, it is stated as (“TAMIL”). Such variation in the translation would definitely cause confusion to the detenu in making an effective representation. Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention and on this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.1286/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.10.2013, is set aside. Therefore, the defective translation would vitiate the order of detention and on this sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.1286/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.10.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Venkatabalasubramanian @ Balasubramanian @ Ice, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.