JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition is thrown to Order no.DIVCOM-”K”/62/2017 dated 21.11.2017, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Srinagar (for brevity “detaining authority”), placing one Farooq Ahmad Dar son of Mohammad Sultan Dar resident of Lachipora Tehsil Handwara District Kupwara (for short “detenu”) under preventive detention and ordering her lodgement in Central Jail, Srinagar. 2. The case set up in the petition on hand is that detenu was arrested by the police personnel on 30.09.2017 and lodged in police station Handwara. He continued to be detained in the aforesaid police station till he was shifted and lodged in District Jail Kupwara under judicial custody. Pursuant to impugned detention order, detenu has been taken under preventive detention and shifted to District Jail, Anantnag. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 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. He avers that the grounds of detention and the instances and acts attributed to detenu so mentioned in the grounds of detention and FIR are false, baseless and concocted and all these allegations levelled against detenu are without any basis. The detenu is said to be neither involved in the FIR mentioned in the detention order nor has he committed the offence as alleged against him. The police is stated to have presented the challan against detenu, where the police has yet to establish the case. The detenu has not been produced before the Advisory Board and that the requirements for confirming and approval of detention order have not been fulfilled within parameters of law. 5. Before adverting to 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. 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. 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. Our Constitution framers had visualised the danger of misuse of such type of substances and therefore, made it part of directives issued to the State. 7. Our Constitution framers had visualised the danger of misuse of such type of substances and therefore, made it 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. 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 detenu is a notorious drug peddler and habitual smoker besides he peddles drugs particularly Charas and supply the same among the youth and other persons of the locality especially college going youth. 9. Reverting back to the case in hand. Grounds of detention reveal that the detenu is a notorious drug peddler and habitual smoker besides he peddles drugs particularly Charas and supply the same among the youth and other persons of the locality especially college going youth. He has been shown to have spoiled the youth of the area by supplying them charas and has created a serious problem in the area as the youth often commit crime against women and theft etcetera. He, aiming at to spread the menace of illegal and immoral business, transport the drugs especially Charas from other areas to make money, thus, ruining the society and creating conditions prejudicial to the law and public order in the area. On 30.09.2017, during patrolling and naka checking at Baki-akar crossing, he was found in suspicious condition and on seeking the police party, he managed to escape from the spot but the naka party made all efforts and apprehended him tactfully and on search a polythene bag containing 830 grams Charas like substance was recovered from his possession, which was followed by registration of case FIR No.316/2017 under Section 8/20 NDPS in Police Station Handwara. It is also explicitly mentioned in the grounds of detention that the sample of seized contraband, sent to FSL Srinagar for expert opinion, was found Charas. Respondent – detaining authority, having regard to detenu posing threat to health and welfare of the people of District Kupwara, which have deleterious impact on the National and State 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. 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 a 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/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 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 imperilling 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. Perusal of file reveals that detenu was vide communication no.Div.com/ RA-Detn / (23) / 2017 dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure A to petition), informed to make a representation against the detention order if he so desired, both to detaining authority and Government. Perusal of file reveals that detenu was vide communication no.Div.com/ RA-Detn / (23) / 2017 dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure A to petition), informed to make a representation against the detention order if he so desired, both to detaining authority and Government. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenu 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 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 he is an accused in a 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. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that I have already rendered a judgment dated 16th March 2018, in a petition, being HCP No.303/2017 titled Mst. Afroza v. State of J&K and others, which squarely covers and sets at rest the subject matter of instant petition as well. 16. For all what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed.