Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. 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 BDFGISSV No.375/2013 dated 09.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.1706 of 2012 454, 380 IPC 2. S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.1762/2012 380 IPC 3. E-1 Mamallapuram Police Station Crime No.678/2012 379 IPC @ 454, 380 IPC 4. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1971/2012 454, 380 IPC 5. E-6 Thiruporur Police Station Crime No.92/2013 454, 380 IPC 6. J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Crime No.433/2013 380 IPC 7. J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Crime No.841/2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-6, R.K.Nagar Police Station in Crime No.886 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 327, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3.Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the grounds of detention in the English version has been signed by the detaining authority and the vernacular version of the grounds of detention does not carry the signature of the detaining authority. Therefore, the same would not only deprive the detenu from making effective representation but also creates a doubt in the mind of the detenu as to whether the same is the proper translation of the English version. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. A perusal of the grounds of detention would go to show that the detaining authority has signed only in the English version and he has not signed in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention. Therefore, it cannot be construed as the grounds of detention in the Vernacular version, which is the language known to the detenu and the detenu is prevented from making effective representation. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Therefore, it cannot be construed as the grounds of detention in the Vernacular version, which is the language known to the detenu and the detenu is prevented from making effective representation. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Anandababu, S/o.Karunakaran, made in BDFGISSV No.375/2013 dated 09.07.2013 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.