Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Mother of the detenu is the petitioner herein. 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 BDGISSV No.445/2013, dated 17.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. D.4 Zam Bazaar Police Station Crime No.86/2012 379 I.P.C. 2. D.2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No. 1261/2012 147, 148, 341, 307 &506 (ii) I.P.C. 3. D.2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No. 451/2013 341, 294 (b), 385 & 506 (ii) I.P.C. 4. F.1 Chintadripet Police Station Crime No. 400/2013 143, 341, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.06.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, D.4 Zam Bazaar Police Station in Crime No. 375/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 385, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would attack the impugned order of detention on the following grounds: (1) There is a defect in the translation. In the bail petition available at Page No: 123 the Crime Number is given as "375 of 2013". However, in the tamil version, the crime number is given as "8347 of 2013", and (2) In the arrest intimation found at Page No: 77 it is stated that the arrest was informed to one "Zarina" who is no way related to the detenu, thereby the arrest of the detenu was not informed to any close relations or associates of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid two grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same may be quashed. 4. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. P.Govindarajan learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the error pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the bail petition found at Page No: 123 and 125 of the booklet, viz. Mentioning of the Crime Numbers wrongly, cannot be said to be a defect in the translation so as to render the detention order per se illegal. P.Govindarajan learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the error pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the bail petition found at Page No: 123 and 125 of the booklet, viz. Mentioning of the Crime Numbers wrongly, cannot be said to be a defect in the translation so as to render the detention order per se illegal. More over, the documents annexed at Page No: 123 of the booklet is only the bail petition filed by the detenu himself and the document available at Page No: 125 is the tamil translation of the bail petition filed by the detenu. Therefore, as the document is only detenu's own bail petition, the error pointed out would not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making any effective representation against his detention. As to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that arrest was intimated to one "Zarina" who is no way related to the detenu, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, took us through the Confession Statement given by the detenu, which finds a place at Page No: 110 of the booklet and submitted that "Zarina" is none other than the detenu's brother's wife. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before us. 6. Only two points were urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner viz. (1) the crime number given in the english version and the tamil version of the bail petition differs and thus, there is a defect in the translation and (2) the arrest intimation was given to one "Zarina" who is an unknown person to the detenu. True it is that in the bail petition available at Page No: 123 the Crime Number is given as "375 of 2013" and in the tamil version, the number is given as "8347 of 2013". However, both these documents found at page numbers 123 and 125 of the booklet are only bail petition and its translation. The bail petition is one filed by the detenu himself before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai. In our considered opinion, the defect so pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the translation can only be termed as a type-graphical error and this would not in any way prejudice the right of the detenu in making an effective representation before the appropriate authority. In our considered opinion, the defect so pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the translation can only be termed as a type-graphical error and this would not in any way prejudice the right of the detenu in making an effective representation before the appropriate authority. Therefore, on that count, the detention order cannot be quashed. 7. Next we shall consider the question of "intiamation about the arrest". According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the arrest intimation was given to one "Zarina" – as found at Page No: 77 of the booklet – who is a third party and neither related nor a friend of the detenu and therefore, on that ground the detention order is vitiated in law. At page No: 110 of the booklet, the confession statement given by the detenu pursuant to his arrest in the ground case in Crime No: 375 of 2013 is enclosed. In that statement the detenu has stated that his brother had married one "Zarina". The relevant portion of the confession statement reads as under : “TAMIL” Thus, it is clear that Zarina is none else than the wife of detenu's brother Syed. Therefore, on this ground also the detention order cannot be set aside. 8. Accordingly, while rejecting both the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dismiss this habeas corpus petition. There shall be no orders as to the costs.