Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of 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 Memo No.1227/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Section of Law 1. T-2, Ambathur Estate Police Station, Crime No.319 of 2011 Sections 341, 427 & 392 IPC 2. T-2, Ambathur Estate Police Station, Crime No.322 of 2011 Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. T-3, Korattur Police Station Crime No.1378 of 2012 Section 379 IPC 4. T-3, Korattur Police Station Crime No.1605 of 2013 Sections 384 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-3, Korattur Police Station in Crime No.1637 of 2013 for offence under Sections 341, 336, 427, 506(ii), 307, 392 r/w 397 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 has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a variation in translation of the remand order annexed in the booklet, which has deprived the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities concerned and 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. A careful scrutiny of the booklet and comparison of English version of remand order dated 19.09.2013, with the Tamil translation annexed in the booklet at Page Nos.93 and 94 would reveal some defects in translation. While the English version informs of the following: "3 p.m. Accused produced. No complaints against the police. Grounds for arrest known to him. Arrest intimated to his wife. Accused Remanded to Judicial Custody till 03.10.13.” the Tamil version informs thus, (“TAMIL”) 6. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.93 and 94, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the sentence “Arrest intimated to his wife” has not been translated in Tamil. On verification of the booklet at Page Nos.93 and 94, it comes to light that there is a contradiction in translation between English and Tamil Versions in respect of the same document, viz., remand order, wherein the sentence “Arrest intimated to his wife” has not been translated in Tamil. Thus, when there is a discrepancy between English and Tamil version, the opportunity of detenu making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied and 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. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Anbazhagan, S/o.Mani, made in Memo No.1227/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.10.2013, 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.