JUDGMENT 1. Shri Jahangeer Ahmed Khan son of M. Ayoub Khan resident of Wanigam Bala, Baramulla, (for short "detenu") has been, vide order no. DIVCOM "K”/17/2016 dated 4th February 2016, issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir-respondent no. 2 here (for brevity "detaining authority") placed under detention and lodged in District Jail, Kupwara. It is this order that has been thrown to challenge in instant petition. 2. The case set up in the petition is that detenu was apprehended by police station Keeri, Baramulla on 19th December 2015 and some four odd bottles of Codeine were alleged to have been recovered from him and FIR no. 72/2015 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act registered and again on 23rd December 2015 detenu was alleged to have been apprehended with 08 bottles of Codeine Phosphate. It is pleaded that 61 bottles of Onrex were seized and FIR No. 219/2015 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station Pattan, in which detenu as well has been implicated. According to petitioner, detenu is not involved in any of the above cases and he has been released on bail in all three cases/FIRs. 3. Respondent no. 2 - detaining authority, in his counter affidavit, has objected petition on the ground that detention order has been passed in exercise of powers vested with detaining authority in pursuance of section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, with a view to prevent detenu from indulging in illegal trade of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance. It is insisted that drug trafficking poses a great threat to the society for the reason that proceeds of drug, sale can be utilized for financing of other criminal activities. It is averred that detenu started selling drugs in District Baramulla, particularly in Pattan/Kreeri area and motived youth to get them addicted to drugs with the sole motive to increase his earnings. On 19th December 2015, as stated in counter affidavit, 04 bottles of Codeine were recovered from detenu's possession and that on 23rd December 2015 again 08 bottles of Codeine Phosphate were recovered from detenu. Respondent - detaining authority also contends that after getting bail, detenu recycled into the trade and on 28th December 2015, 61 bottles were seized from a vehicle and FIR was registered. During investigation detenu was found involved in the case. Respondent - detaining authority also contends that after getting bail, detenu recycled into the trade and on 28th December 2015, 61 bottles were seized from a vehicle and FIR was registered. During investigation detenu was found involved in the case. It is contended that consignment seized from detenu's possession shows that detenu is fully involved in illegal trade with conscious mind, in an unorganized manner, which is great threat for sustaining moral values of the society, thus, this aspect poses a serious threat to the health, wealth and welfare of the people especially young generation in the State in general and District Baramulla in particular. It is further averred that detenu was bailed out, every time he recycled into illicit trade and has not bothered to mend his activities, moreover the trade being highly lucrative as it has potential of attracting more and venerable youth into its fold, if not checked at proper time, as such, with a view to prevent detenu from committing any offence, detention order was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matters. I have gone through the detention record made available by learned Additional Advocate General. 5. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be appropriate to state that with the evolution of mankind from primitive stage to the stage of social welfare state, the administration of criminal law assumed great importance. As long as human beings were God-fearing and had faith that their actions were being watched by the Almighty the need for the administration of criminal justice was not felt. However, with the passage of time and the people becoming more materialistic, a section of the society consisting of misguided and disgruntled human beings lost faith in the Almighty and started thinking that their actions could not be seen by anybody. These misguided persons indulged in criminal activities which led to the necessity for administration of criminal justice. In addition, the activities to be termed as criminal activities have also undergone change with the passage of time. What was regarded not harmful fifty years ago has become the greatest evil of the day in view of changed circumstances, new researches, new thinking and modern way of life. 6. The present case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The drug problem is a serious threat to public health, safety and well-being of humanity. What was regarded not harmful fifty years ago has become the greatest evil of the day in view of changed circumstances, new researches, new thinking and modern way of life. 6. The present case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The drug problem is a serious threat to public health, safety and well-being of humanity. Our global society is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts the health and fabric of the society and it is considered to be the originator for petty offences as well as heinous crimes like smuggling of arms & ammunition and money laundering. The involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threat to the national security and sovereignty of States by the way of Narco-terrorism. The drug trafficking and abuse has continued its significant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of many persons around the globe. With the growth and development of world economy, drug traffickers are also seamlessly trafficking various type of drugs from one corner to other ensuring the availability of the contrabands for vulnerable segment of the society who fall into the trap of drug peddlers and traffickers. Due to India's close proximity with major opium growing areas of the region, India is facing serious menace of drug trafficking and as a spill-over effect, drug abuse especially among the youth is a matter of concern for us. 7. How to tackle the menace of drugs is well enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Directive Principles lay down that the State shall make endeavours to bring about the prohibition of substances injurious for health except for medicinal and scientific purposes. In recent years, India has been facing a problem of transit traffic in illicit drugs. The spill over from such traffic has caused problems of abuse and addiction. This trend has created an illicit demand for drugs within the country. Although a number of legislative, administrative and other preventive measures, including the deterrent penal provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, were taken, the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not completely eliminated. This trend has created an illicit demand for drugs within the country. Although a number of legislative, administrative and other preventive measures, including the deterrent penal provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985, were taken, the transit traffic in illicit drugs had not completely eliminated. It was, therefore, felt that a preventive detention law should be enacted with a view to effectively immobilise the persons engaged in any kind of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. To achieve this objective the Prevention of Illicit Traffic Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, came into force on 4th of July 1988. 8. Aim and object of enactment of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, is to provide detention in certain cases to prevent illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and for matters connected therewith. The illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and activities of persons engaged in such illicit traffic have a deleterious effect on the national economy as well. Having regard to the persons by whom the manner in which such activities are organised and carried on, and having regard to the fact that in certain areas which are highly vulnerable to the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, such activities of a considerable magnitude are clandestinely organised and carried on, it is necessary for the effective prevention of such activities to provide for detention of persons concerned in any manner therewith. 9. Now let us have a focus on present case. It appears that reports were received that an organised drug trafficking gang was working in District Baramulla, which was involved in procuring, transporting and sale of drugs and psychotropic substances. The detenu was apprehended by police personnel of police station Kreeri on 19th December 2015 and recovered 04 bottles of Codeine from his possession, which was followed by lodgement of case FIR No. 72/2015 under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act in Police Station Kreeri. The detenu obtained bail in the said case. Again on 23rd December 2015, 08 bottles of Codeine Phosphate were recovered from the possession of detenu. Case FIR No. 75/015 under section 8/15 of NDPS Act was, accordingly, lodged. The detenu obtained bail in the said case. Again on 23rd December 2015, 08 bottles of Codeine Phosphate were recovered from the possession of detenu. Case FIR No. 75/015 under section 8/15 of NDPS Act was, accordingly, lodged. On 28th December 2015, 61 bottles of ONREX were seized from a vehicle (Swift Dezire) bearing Registration No. JKo5E/4292 and during investigation it was found that detenu is involved in the said case as well. Detenu, as admitted by him in petition, earned bail in all three cases/FIRs. Respondent - detaining authority, having regard to detenu having been posing threat to health and welfare of the people of Baramulla Town, which have deleterious effect on natural economy as well as serious negative impact on the society at large and younger generation in particular, placed detenu under preventive detention vide impugned order. 10. The right of personal liberty is most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charges in case the prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of the offence, he still has the satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, framers of the constitution have by incorporating Article 22 (5) in the Constitution left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person having been held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. The object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. The object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch as, by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing the general public to risk and cause colossal damage to life and property. It is, therefore, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon perpetrating mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) Constitution of India therefore leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 11. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B., (1975) 3 SCC 198 , has succinctly pointed out difference between preventive and punitive detention in the following words: "The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent." 12. The conceptual framework of preventive detention has been reiterated in Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCR 832 , as under: "The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. The conceptual framework of preventive detention has been reiterated in Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCR 832 , as under: "The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof." 13. In Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 276 , the Court observed: "It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from imperilling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquillity or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so." 14. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenu at the time of execution of detention was handed over copy of the detention order, copy of the grounds of detention and other material. The detenu, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of representation against the detention order if he so desire, both to detaining authority and Government. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenu is informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with detaining authority while passing detention order. The detenu, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of representation against the detention order if he so desire, both to detaining authority and Government. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenu is informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with detaining authority while passing detention order. The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that made the detaining authority to exercise its powers under Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 and record subjective satisfaction that detenu was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic. The detaining authority has informed detenu that detenu is an accused in three cases, involving illegal trafficking of narcotic substances, which poses serious and great threat to the society particularly health, wealth and welfare of the people especially young generation. So viewed the detenu is not to be heard saying that any of his Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention order in question was slapped on him and thereafter executed. 15. Apart from the above discussion, it would be appropriate to reiterate here that preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. The object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the Executive is convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the concerned law. The action of Executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner, the failure to conform to which should lead to detention. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance, with great latitude in the exercise of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act on any material and on any information that it may have before it. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance, with great latitude in the exercise of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act on any material and on any information that it may have before it. Such material and information may merely afford basis for a sufficiently strong suspicion to take action, but may not satisfy the tests of legal proof on which alone a conviction for offence will be tenable. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in society, without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right of personal liberty of citizens, would lose all their meanings, are true justification for. laws of prevention detention. Laws, that provide for preventive detention, posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to maintenance of public order or to the security of State or corroding financial base provides grounds for satisfaction for a reasonable prognostication of possible future manifestations'of similar propensities on the part of the offender. This jurisdiction has, at times, been even described as a "jurisdiction of suspicion" and the compulsions of the very preservation of the values of freedom of democratic society and of social order merit curtailment of individual liberty. It is pertinent to point out here that it is not to be seen that how many times the detenu indulged in an act but it is to be realised that what is its impact and ramification on the social fabric of the society. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Shrimati Chaya Ghoshal and another (2004 (AIR) SCW 6999) has observed: "So far as the finding of the High Court that there was only one incident is really a conclusion based on erroneous premises. It is not number of acts which determine the question as to whether detention is warranted. It is the impact of the act, the factual position as highlighted goes to show that the financial consequences were enormous and ran to crores of rupees, as alleged by the Detaining Authority. The High Court seems to have been swayed away that there was only one incident and none after release on bail. The approach was not certainly correct and the judgment on that score also is vulnerable. The High Court seems to have been swayed away that there was only one incident and none after release on bail. The approach was not certainly correct and the judgment on that score also is vulnerable. At the cost of repetition it may be said that it is not the number of acts which is material, it is the impact and effect of the act which is determinative. The High Court's conclusions in this regard are therefore not sustainable. What emerges from above is that it is not a number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual but it is impact of the act which is material and determinative. In the instant case the act of detenu relates to drug trafficking, which has posed serious threat, apart from health and welfare of the people, to youth, most particularly unemployed youth, to indulge in such acts, ramifications thereof would be irreversible. 16. For all what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed. 17. Detention record be returned to the counsel for respondents. Petition dismissed