Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 BDFGISSV No.1824/2013, dated 07.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Crime No.62/2012 302 @ 341, 302 IPC 2 M-2 Madhavaram Police Station Crime No.1667/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 02.12.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1 Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No.2285/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, 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 02.12.2013, it has been stated that grounds of arrest and legal aid informed but in the vernacular version, the said sentence was wrongly translated. The said variation in the vernacular version of the remand order, prevented the detenu from making effective representation. In the English version of the remand order dated 02.12.2013 found at Page No.83 of the booklet, it is stated thus: "A1, A2 produced at 3.00 p.m. Grounds of arrest & legal aid informed. No complaints of illtreatment by police. Remanded to judicial custody till 16.12.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.84, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The words “legal aid” have been wrongly translated as instead of in the vernacular version of the remand order. When there is a variation in translation, that too in the document relied on by the detaining authority, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. When there is a variation in translation, that too in the document relied on by the detaining authority, opportunity of clear understanding and making effective representation on such understanding is lost and the detenu is deprived thereof. The defective translation amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No.1824/2013 dated 07.12.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Anna @ Annadurai, S/o. Karuppaiah, 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.