JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2ndrespondent passed in No.1079/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 22.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. N4 Fishing Harbour Police Station Crime No.118/2012 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC 2. N4 Fishing Harbour Police Station Crime No.90/2013 341, 384 and 506(ii) IPC 3. N4 Fishing Harbour Police Station Crime No.98/2013 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 14.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, N-4 Fishing Harbour Police Station in Crime No.632/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is variation in the translated version of the remand order. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not well founded. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents available on record. 5. A perusal of the booklet would show that in the English version of the remand order dated 15.09.2013, it has been stated that nature of offence and right to engage counsel are explained whereas in the vernacular version, the said sentence was omitted. The omission of vital information viz., “Nature of offence and right to engage counsel are explained” in the vernacular version of the remand order, prevented the detenu from engaging the counsel. In the English version of the remand order dated 15.09.2013 found at Page No.116 of the booklet, it is stated thus: "Accused produced at 6.30 p.m. Nature of offence and right engage counsel are explained. Records are perused and satisfied the reasons for remand. Hence the accused is remanded till 27.09.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.117, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “right to engage counsel” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from engaging the counsel. Hence the accused is remanded till 27.09.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.117, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “right to engage counsel” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from engaging the counsel. Since there is variation in the translated version of the remand order in respect of the sentence in English version "Nature of offence and right to engage counsel are explained" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu is prevented from engaging the counsel. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in No.1079/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 22.09.2013, is set aside. The detenu - Vadivel, S/o.Jayaraman, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 7. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to 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.