Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1573 of 2013, dated 10.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-6 Manali Police Station Crime No. 1128 of 2013 392 IPC 2. M-3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No. 1438 of 2013 392 and 397 IPC 3. M-7 Manali Police Station Crime No. 763 of 2013 392 IPC 4. M-7 Manali Police Station Crime No. 920 of 2013 457 & 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 10.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, M7 Manali New Town Police Station in Crime No. 966 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506 (ii) r/w 397 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 22.10.2013 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 22.10.2013 annexed in Page No. 56 of the booklet with the Tamil version annexed in Page No. 55 would reveal some defects in translation. The English version of the remand order reads thus: "Accused 1 to 3 produced at 9.30 P.M. No complaints against police. Grounds and family intimated." The Tamil version reads thus: (Tamil) 6. On verification of the English and Tamil version of the remand order found in pages 55 and 57 of the booklet, it is seen that there is contradiction in translation. In the English version, it is stated that Accused 1 to 3 produced at 9.30 P.M. But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to Accused 1 and 2 and the time is also given as just 9.30. In the English version, it is stated that Accused 1 to 3 produced at 9.30 P.M. But, in the Tamil version, there is mention only with regard to Accused 1 and 2 and the time is also given as just 9.30. No A.M. or P.M. is mentioned therein. 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, Raja @ Rajasekar, made in BDFGISSV No. 1573 of 2013 dated 10.11.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.