Judgment : G. Chockalingam, 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 order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.1675 of 2013, dated 20.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-4 Redhills Police Station, Crime No.605/2011 341 and 307 IPC 2. R-8 Vadapalani Police Station, Crime No.1275/2011 380 IPC 3. R-8 Vadapalani Police Station, Crime No. 1319/2013 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-8 Vadapalani Police Station in Crime No.1346 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him and this deprived the detenu from making effective representation. 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. From a perusal of the booklet, it is seen that even though the F.I.R. is legible, the Xerox copy of F.I.R. has not been taken properly and moreover, instead of giving contents of F.I.R. in a separate sheet, all the matters have been stuffed in only one page, which creates confusion while reading the F.I.R. and the same would deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Arunpandi, S/o. Rajendran, made in BDFGISSV No.1675 of 2013, dated 20.11.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Arunpandi, S/o. Rajendran, made in BDFGISSV No.1675 of 2013, dated 20.11.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.