JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. Shri Javid Ahmad Mir son of Mohd. Sadiq Mir resident of Manzpora, Naidkhai, Sumbal (for short "detenu") has been, vide Order No. DIVCOM -"K736/2016, dated 19th April 2016, issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir-respondent No. 2 here (for brevity "detaining authority") placed under detention and lodged in District Jail, Anantnag. It is this order that has been thrown to challenge in instant petition. The case set up in the petition is that detenu was arrested by police station Sumbal in connection with FIR No. 11/2016 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act on 19th January 2016 and he continues to be under incarceration since then and the investigation of the case has not yet been completed. This was followed by passing of detention order. It is maintained in the petition that grounds of detention as formulated by the Divisional Commissioner have been incorporated in the dossier which ipso facto demonstrate complete non-application of mind on part of detaining authority and that no compelling reasons have been assigned. The detenu is stated to have been falsely implicated in the aforementioned FIR, when the detenu has not at all any remote connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR. To cement the case for quashment of detention order, case-law has been referred in the petition, which are Sayed Abdul Ala v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SCW 6974 ; Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 531 ; and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427 . 2. When the matter was taken up on 20th October 2016, learned counsel for respondents stated at Bar that he would argue the matter in absence of counter as according to him the record was available, which could have extend him help advance arguments. 3. Learned counsel for respondents objects 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. He insists 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 and that detenu has made the life of peace loving citizens of Naidkhai Sumbal miserable and have caused scare among the parents. He contends that consignment seized from detenu's possession shows that detenu is fully involved in illegal trade with conscious mind, in an organized 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 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. Our global society is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and sustainable development. In addition, 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. Our global society is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and sustainable development. In addition, 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. 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. 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 make and effect 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 the 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 and 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. The record reveals that detenu is reportedly involved in motivating the youth for consumption of drugs so as to increase his earning and he is stated to be an active member of drug mafia, which is hell bent upon to spoil the life and career of young generation by selling drugs to them. The local population of Sumbal is alleged to have fed up with detenu's dealing and conduct and his modus operandi is to sell the drugs to young boys particularly school going children during school hours after illegally stocking ample quota of drugs. Besides detenu is said to be involved in anti-social activities as well, which have made the life of peace loving citizens of Naidkhai Sumbal miserable and caused panic among the parents. Besides detenu is said to be involved in anti-social activities as well, which have made the life of peace loving citizens of Naidkhai Sumbal miserable and caused panic among the parents. The detenu was apprehended by concerned police at Manzpora Naidkhai at 17.30 hours on 19th January 2016, when he was on his way to his shop from his home along with a white bag and on seeing the police party detenu is said to have tried to run away from the spot but the police party caught him and recovered liquor "flying bird" 08 bottles of 750 ml each; 19 bottles of 180 ml each; and a poly bag in which Charas 400 gm was kept hidden. As a consequence thereof, FIR No. 11/2016 under Section 8/20 NDPC was registered in Police Station Sumbal. The contraband material seized from detenu's possession was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for ascertaining its veracity and the report bearing No. HO-C & T/Sgr., dated 30th January 2016 confirmed as Charas. The consignment seized from the possession of detenu shows that he is fully involved in the said illegal trade with conscious mind, in an organized 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 of District Bandipora in particular and that his activities also have deleterious effect on the National and State Economy. These circumstances appear to have given a clear picture for detaining authority to pass detention order. This takes us to the Constitutional safeguards provided under the Constitution of India. 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. 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. 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 Hardhan 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. 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. 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 imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility 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. After above discussion, let us have a look to the citations referred to in the petition as also relied upon by learned counsel during course of argumentation. These judgments are Sayed Abdul Ala v. Union of India & Ors. After above discussion, let us have a look to the citations referred to in the petition as also relied upon by learned counsel during course of argumentation. These judgments are Sayed Abdul Ala v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2007 SCW 6974 ; Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 531 ; Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 427 and judgment dated 11th August 2011 in HCP No. 185/2011 titled Mehraj Ahmad Bhat v. State and others passed by the Court. The set of facts and circumstances of the cited cases by learned counsel for petitioner, are totally distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of present case. It is pertinent to point out that the Supreme Court in the cases of D.M. Nagaraja v. Government of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215 and G. Reddeiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 389 , has considered the earlier decision in the case of Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 260 and distinguished it. In the case of D.M. Nagaraja (supra), it is observed: "18. The learned counsel for the appellant very much relied on a decision of Apex Court in Rekha. In the above case, against the detention order dated 8.4.2010 imposed on Ramkrishnan under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 on the allegation that he was selling expired drugs after tampering with labels and printing fresh labels showing them as non-expired drugs, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the Madras High Court. The said writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, the wife of the detenu therein, approached the Apex Court by way of special leave to appeal. 19. In the judgment in Rekha, Apex Court has extracted the detention order and the grounds for detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. The said writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, the wife of the detenu therein, approached the Apex Court by way of special leave to appeal. 19. In the judgment in Rekha, Apex Court has extracted the detention order and the grounds for detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. The grounds show that there is reference to one incident relating to selling expired drugs and the detaining authority by pointing out that necessary steps are being taken by his relatives to take him out on bail and since in similar case, bails were granted by the courts after lapse of some time and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order and recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, on the materials placed and after fully satisfying, the detaining authority has passed an order under the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. In para 7, the Bench has pointed out that in the grounds of detention, no details have been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail was allegedly granted by the court concerned. The grounds retracted therein also are bereft of any further details. In those circumstances, this Court taking note of various earlier decisions came to the conclusion that normal recourse to ordinary law would be sufficient and there is no need for invocation of the special Act. 20. In the case on hand, we have already extracted criminality, criminal activities starting from the age 30 and details relating to eleven cases mentioned in the grounds of detention..... 21. In view of enormous materials which are available in the grounds of detention, such habituality has not been cited in the above referred Rekha, we are satisfied that the said decision is "distinguishable" on facts with reference to the case on hand and the contention based on the same is liable to be rejected." 15. Thus, from the decision in the case of Nagaraja (supra), it is clear that each case will have to be decided on the peculiar facts of that case. In the case of G. Reddeiah (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 23, observed as under: "23. Thus, from the decision in the case of Nagaraja (supra), it is clear that each case will have to be decided on the peculiar facts of that case. In the case of G. Reddeiah (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 23, observed as under: "23. Though an attempt was made to nullify the order of detention by drawing our attention to the decision of Apex Court in Rekha v. State of T.N. (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri.) 596, on going through the factual position and orders therein and in view of the enormous activities of the detenu violating various provisions of IPC, the A.P. Act and the Rules, continuous and habituality in pursuing the same type of offences, and taking note of the abundant factual details as available in the grounds of detention and also of the fact that all the procedures and statutory safeguards have been fully complied with by the detaining authority, we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, we fully agree with the reasoning of the detaining authority as approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court". 16. It may not be out of place to point out here that it is well settled that a judgment of a Court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclid's theorem nor as if it was a Statute. On the subject of precedents Lord Halsbury, L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathern, 1901 AC 495: "Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." 17. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC 213 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "The ratio of any decision must be understood, in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it." 18. In Bhavnagar University v. Palittana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 , the Supreme Court observed that "It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision". As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & another v. N.R. Vairamani & another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4778 , a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed: "Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes." 19. In London Graving Dock Co. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes." 19. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton (1951 AC 737 at page 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed that "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge". 20. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech... is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition; it will require qualification in new circumstances, Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a. reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament". And in Herrington v. British Railways Board ( 1972 (2) WLR 537 ) Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo, J.) by matching the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo, J.) by matching the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 21. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 946 and in Government of Karnataka & Ors. v. Gowramma & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 863 . 22. Thus, in view of the above decisions including in D.M. Nagaraja and Reddeiah, (supra), it cannot be said that the decision in Rekha's case (supra) or for that matter other citations referred in petition or relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, is/are an authority on the extreme proposition canvassed. The judicial review of the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority, therefore, will have to be tested on case to case basis and if tangible justification is spelt out in the grounds of detention, it is imminent to issue order of preventive detention qua him that would be permissible and legitimate. 23. From the decisions in the case of D.M. Nagaraja and Reddeiah, (supra) it is clear that each case will have to be decided on its own facts. The facts in the present case are that in the preamble which is reflected in paragraph 02 of the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detenu is involved in selling drugs to young boys particularly school going children and recovery of liquor "flying bird" 08 bottles of 750 ml each, 19 bottles of 180 ml each and a polythene bag in which Charas of 400 gms was kept. 24. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenu at the time of execution of detention was provided copy of the detention order, copy of the grounds of detention and other material. 24. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenu at the time of execution of detention was provided 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 have been read over detenu in the language he under-stands i.e. Kashmiri in presence of witnesses, whose signatures are affixed overleaf detention order. 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 aforementioned case, 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. 25. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 26. For all what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed. Detention record be returned to counsel for respondents.