JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre J. 1. The petitioner challenges the detention Order FN-801/A-5/91 dt. 7.5.97 passed by Resp. No. 1 under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in N. D. P. S. Act 1988 (hereinafter called as PIT NDPS Act for convenience). 2. Few facts need to be mentioned for unfolding the matter. It is alleged by the prosecution that 29 Kgs. of opium was seized from the field belonging to and in possession of the petitioner by the raiding party under the employment of the respondents more particularly under control of C.B.N. Neemuch. The petitioner was prosceuted and when he was in custody, an order was passed against him for his detention which has been mentioned above. 3. It appears from the record and the submissions that during the course of investigation of the said crime, the petitioner gave a statement which was recorded by the investigating agency in view of provisions of Section 67 of NDPS Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act for convenience). 4. Shri AH Khan, counsel appearing for detenu attacked the order of detention mainly on the following points: (i) The detaining authority did not satisfy itself legally before passing the detention order. (ii) There was no need of passing such detention order when the petitioner was already in custody. There was no possibility of the petitioner to commit the act which was punishable under provisions of NDPS Act. (iii) The petitioner was not necessary to be detained as he was not "trafficking" in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 5. Shri Khan placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Writ Petition 1495/97 decided on 17.2.98 (of which Justice J.G. Chitre was member). By placing reliance on that judgment Shri Khan submitted that the detention order is bad in law in absence of "legal satisfaction" as well as in absence of need on detaining the detenu for preventing him from trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Countering to that Shri G. Desai, Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Umrani Swaminatlian Laxman reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 165. 6. In view of these submissions, the record will have to be examined. 7. Countering to that Shri G. Desai, Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Umrani Swaminatlian Laxman reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 165. 6. In view of these submissions, the record will have to be examined. 7. Shri Desai, pointed out that the detenu gave a statement which was recorded by investigating agency in view of provisions of Section 67 of NDPS Act which shows his involvement in possession of the opium which was possessed by him using clandestine means though the father of the petitioner detenu, happens to be a Pattadhar for cultivating the opium. The petitioner did not produce any meterial on record to show that he retracted that statement, so far as this petition is concerned. Therefore, we are not interested in dealing with the submission of Shri khan On that point. 8. May that be, but it is necessary to interpret what word "trafficking" means which has been used in Section 2(e) of PIT NDPS Act. Section 2(e) follows: "illicit traffic" in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances means-- (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant. (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant. (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-state, export inter-state import into India, export from India or transhipment or narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotics drugs psychotropic sub-stances other than those provided in Sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying onof the activities referred to in Sub-clauses (i) to (iv); other than those permitted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (6 of 1985), or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, permit or authorisation issued, thereunder, and includes:-- (i) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned Activities; (ii) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (iii) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities. 9. 9. Meaning of the word "trafficking" has been given as mentioned below in "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" 3rd Edition as-verb-to carry on trade, to trade, to buy and sell; to have commercial dealings with any one; to deal with any commodity, to resort to a place for the purpose of trading. 10. When the verb "traffic" is used as "tracfficking" it means by reading the meaning given by the above said dictionary and the way in which it has been used, that there should be repetition of such acts. Atleast, there shoud be commission of such act for more than once. It is to be noted that in Section 2(e) words which are underlined are used. They also indicate that the act which has been indicated as offence in NDPS Act should have repeated, atleast should have been committed more than once. According to our interpretation word trafficking is indicating that act repeatedly, continuously. It is on par with word "Habitual" which used while mentioning hardened criminals. 11. In the present matter the petitioner has been prosecuted for only one crime. The record does not show that such information was placed before the detaining authority which was enabling the detaining authority to come to rational conclusion, legal conclusion that if the detenu is not detained, he would engage himself in repetition of such acts and there would be series of some such acts committed by the detenu. We uphold the submissions of Shri Desai, that the word trafficking which has been used in Section 2(e) of PIT NDPS Act and the relevent provisions of PIT NDPS Act permit the detaining authority to detain a person though he is in custody in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Umrani Swaminathan Laxman [supra]. But we are unable to agree with Shri Desai when he submitted that the detaining authority was equipped with legal authority to detain the detenu on solitary instance which has been brought forth before the authority which enabled it to satisfy itself and pass the order detaining the petitioner which has been assailed by this Habeas Corpus petition. 12. Needless to say that the courts should be and they are on guard to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen of this country. 12. Needless to say that the courts should be and they are on guard to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen of this country. The courts would be, therefore, examining every legal aspect of the matter when fundamental rights of a citizen are likely to be jeopardised. The fundamental right of a citizen has its own meaning and importance and for that many persons in the history have fought. After all for that there was famous French Revolution which heralted 'Liberty, equality and falernity'. Why there was famous 'American Civil War'? Why Martin Luther died? The human beings were conferred with right of liberty which is the soul of mankind. Needless to point out that for that right of liberty, many historians have fought many wars and even have died. Right of liberty is very important to living beings. 13. Thus, though we dismiss the submissions of Shri Khan, counsel for the petitioner on other grounds we uphold his submission that order of detention is illegal keeping in view the interpretations of word 'trafficking' and keeping in view solitary instance which was brought before the detaining authority for detention of the detenu which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The liberty has to be restored forthwith and, therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the detention order mentioned above which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 14. The petitioner be set free, if not required in any other proceedings, enquiry, investigation of prosecution. The order was dictated in open court on 13.4.98. After typing, checked and signed on 16.4.98.