JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. Challenge is thrown to Order no. K /61/2017 dated 06. 09. 2017, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar (for brevity detaining authority), placing one Ms Afrooza Begum @ Afri wife of Fayaz Ahmad Dar resident of Ganie Hamam, Baramulla (for short detenue ) under preventive detention and ordering her lodgement in Central Jail, Srinagar. 2. The case set up in the petition on hand is that detenue has been implicated in a false case more than once, which has never been proved against her and now when respondents have failed to prove anything against her, she has been booked by respondents under the provisions of the Illicit Trafficking of Narcotics Act, whereas she has been granted bail for the same offence by the court of competent jurisdiction. It is next contended that petitioner was called to the police station. After detaining her for three days, she was shifted to Central Jail, Srinagar, and her relatives were directed to collect the papers for her detention from the office of detaining authority. A relative of detenue is stated to have collected the detention order as well as grounds of detention on 06. 09. 2017. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record made available by learned Senior Additional Advocate General. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that detention order has been passed in violation of the law and practice and against the mandate of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter Act of 1988) and while doing so all safeguards provided thereunder have been thrown to winds. The detenue is stated to have been booked initially in various offences including non-bailable offences, which carry specific imprisonment and the ordinary traditional criminal law was sufficient to deter the detenue if at all she had committed any offence as is alleged by respondents. It is next argued that apparently and actually the detenue is not involved in any offence before or after the present incident nor anything has been proved against her till date before the court of law nor has she been held guilty by any adjudicatory forum and that petitioner is not a habitual offender in the liquor, narcotics or timber smuggling. A false FIR, it is next averred, has been registered against detenue and the detaining authority has not applied his mind and has not gone even an inch beyond the police report, which itself is sufficient to indicate that impugned order is not preventive in nature but is punitive in character. It is maintained that detenue was taken in custody on 20. 07. 2017 and she applied for proper bail to the court of competent jurisdiction on 24. 07. 2017. The bail was granted on 21. 08. 2017 and detenue was released on 21. 08. 2017. These facts, according to learned counsel, have not been referred to in detention order. The detenue is stated to be married lady with small children and she has nothing to do with the allegations levelled against her by respondents. The detention order is stated to have been passed on 06. 09. 2017 without mentioning the period of detention. The detaining authority, it is submitted, has passed a vague order. It is vehemently stated that the detenue through her relatives has preferred a representation against the order of detention before the detaining authority and the government, but neither the detaining authority nor the government has considered the representation filed by her nor have they communicated to her as to what decision has been taken by the government or detaining authority on her representation and therefore, respondents have not only violated the statutory obligation but have breached their constitutional duty as well. 5. Before considering the case in hand, it would be appropriate to note 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. 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 socioeconomic 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 and 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 spillover effect, drug abuse especially among the youth is a matter of concern for us. 7. Our Constitution framers had visualized the danger of misuse of such type of substances and therefore, made it a part of directives issued to the State. The Directive Principles which are part of our Constitution 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. 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. 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 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. Reverting back to the case in hand. Grounds of detention reveal that the reports received from field agencies of police suggest that the detenue has been dealing in illegal business of Charas. She, with a view of carrying out the illegal trade, exploits the immature minds of younger generation by making them habitual drug addicts. 9. Reverting back to the case in hand. Grounds of detention reveal that the reports received from field agencies of police suggest that the detenue has been dealing in illegal business of Charas. She, with a view of carrying out the illegal trade, exploits the immature minds of younger generation by making them habitual drug addicts. She, it is also coming to fore from perusal of the grounds of detention, distributes small quantity of Charas and other narcotic substances among them free of cost and thereafter supplying them the same against hefty amounts, which in turn exposes these young boys to different kinds of immoral and illegal criminal tendencies and thus, they resort to theft and illegal activities so as to purchase drugs from detenue. The detenue, the grounds of detention also make it known, was apprehended on 25. 03. 2009 by police personnel of Police Station Baramulla, on reliable information, which revealed that she had hidden intoxicating drugs like Charas in her home at Ganie Hamam, Baramulla. On receipt of the said information, the investigation was set into motion and during the course of investigation, her house was searched in presence of Executive Magistrate and during search Charas weighing 1. 5 kgs was recovered from her house and a case FIR no. 64/2009 was registered in Police Station Baramulla. Again on 12. 02. 2016, police personnel of Police Station Baramulla were on patrolling at old town Baramulla and when she was coming from Ganie Hamam, Baramulla, to National Highway, she saw the police and tried to escape from the spot. However, she was apprehended by lady police, accompanying the patrolling party. During her frisking, Charas, weighing 220 grams, was recovered from her possession, carried by her in a polythene bag, which she had kept under her Fehran. This led to registration of FIR no. 37/2016 P/S Baramulla. The grounds of detention also divulge that thereafter again on 22. 07. 2017, the detenue was apprehended and contraband (powder), weighing 310 grams, was recovered from her possession, which led to registration of another case being FIR no. 132/2017. It is also explicitly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the samples of seized contraband, sent to FSL Srinagar for expert opinion, were found Charas in all the three cases. 07. 2017, the detenue was apprehended and contraband (powder), weighing 310 grams, was recovered from her possession, which led to registration of another case being FIR no. 132/2017. It is also explicitly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the samples of seized contraband, sent to FSL Srinagar for expert opinion, were found Charas in all the three cases. Respondent detaining authority, having regard to the detenue 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 detenue 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/her 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/her personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him/her, he has an opportunity to defend himself/herself and to be acquitted of the charges in case the prosecution fails to bring home his/her guilt. Where such a person is convicted of the offence, he/she still has the satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his/her 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/her 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/her 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. 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. 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 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 detenue at the time of execution of detention was provided copy of the detention order, copy of the grounds of detention and other material. The detenue, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of representation against the detention order if he so desired, both to detaining authority and Government. It is maintained in the petition that a representation has been filed by detenue through her relative. However, copy of the said representation has not been placed on record by petitioner to buttress this assertion. 15. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. However, copy of the said representation has not been placed on record by petitioner to buttress this assertion. 15. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that made it 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 detenue 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 detenue that she 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 detenue is not to be heard saying that any of her Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention order in question was slapped on her and thereafter executed. 16. 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 the 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 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 detenue 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 versus 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. 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. 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 detenue 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 and unimaginable. Petitioner has not been able to convincingly point out violation of any statutory or constitutional provisions. 17. For all what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed. 18. Detention record be returned to the counsel for respondents.