Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been detained as a Goonda under Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 vide proceedings in BDFGISSV No.113/2013, dated 16.07.2013 on the file of the 1st respondent, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Section of Law 1 NIB CID Chennai Unit Crime No. 86/2012 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act 2 NIB CID Chennai Unit Crime No. 139/2012 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Kancheepuram Unit in Crime No.7/2013 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act. 3. The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. He pointed out that in the English version of the remand extension order dated 02.07.2013 found in page 123 of the booklet, it is mentioned that the accused has to be produced before NDPS Court on the next hearing. Whereas, in the Tamil version found in page 125, it is clearly stated that the detenu has to be produced before the NDPS Court on 16.07.2013. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated in law. 4. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. For better appreciation of the case, the English and Tamil version of the Remand extension order dated 02.07.2013 are extracted hereunder: "02.07.2013 Ad pd today. To be produced before NDPS Court next hearing. Re-till 16.07.2013." "(TAMIL)” 6. From a reading of the above portion of the remand extension order, it is seen that there is variation in translation with regard to the period of remand of the accused. In the English version, it is stated 'remand till 16.07.2013'. Whereas, in the Tamil version, the extension of remand of the accused is not mentioned. It is only stated that the accused has to be produced before the NDPS Court on 16.07.2013. In the English version, it is stated 'remand till 16.07.2013'. Whereas, in the Tamil version, the extension of remand of the accused is not mentioned. It is only stated that the accused has to be produced before the NDPS Court on 16.07.2013. Since the translated version is defective, it will definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenu to make an effective representation in respect of redressal of his grievance. Therefore, as defective translation would vitiate the order of detention, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground itself. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent in BDFGISSV No.113/2013 dated 16.07.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Pandian in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.