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 2ndrespondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1707/2013, dated 24.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-1 Madhavaram Police Station Crime No.149/2002 392 IPC 2. M-3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No.319/2009 302 IPC 3. T-2 Ambathur Estate Police Station Crime No.728/2012 294(b), 326, 506(ii), 307 IPC @ 147, 120(b), 294(b), 307 and 506 (ii) IPC 4. V-6 Kolathur Police Station Crime No.1670/2013 324 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, M-1 Madhavaram Police Station in Crime No.2112/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 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 12.11.2013, it has been stated that legal aid explained whereas in the vernacular version, not only the said sentence was omitted but also the date has been wrongly mentioned as 12.11.2003 instead of 12.11.2013. The omission of vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, prevented the detenu from using the same. In the English version of the remand order dated 12.11.2013 found at Page No.130 of the booklet, it is stated thus: "Accused produced at 2.15 p.m. Grounds of arrest & legal aid informed. No complaints of report remanded to judicial custody till 26.11.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.131, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from using the legal aid. No complaints of report remanded to judicial custody till 26.11.2013." whereas, in the vernacular version at Page No.131, it is stated as under: “LANGUAGE” The omission of the vital information viz., “legal aid” in the vernacular version of the remand order, has caused prejudice to the detenu and the detenu was prevented from using the legal aid. Since there is variation in the translated version of the remand order in respect of the words in English version "legal aid informed" and the same has been relied on by the detaining authority for clamping the order of detention, the detenu is prevented from using the legal aid. 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 BDFGISSV No.1707/2013 dated 24.11.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Kathir @ Kathirvel, S/o.Mani, 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.