JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner against whom there are six cases uptill now filed, since the year 2015, for an offence under the Prohibition Act, has filed this application apprehending his preventive detention. From the activities carried on by the petitioner, consistently, prove that he deals in prohibition articles. The last offence which is registered in the month of January 2019, he was arrested and released on bail as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner by an order dated 02.03.2019. Though this petition is affirmed on 25.03.2019, it has been circulated on 29th March, 2019 and thereafter, consistently learned advocate for the petitioner has requested for an adjournment. 2. It is clear that for one of the offence, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.17583 of 2017, prima-facie, without disclosing before the Court that earlier two cases than that case filed against him. Since till 22.01.2018, there was no proposal for detaining the petitioner at the relevant time based only on that FIR projected before the Court to be solitary offence vide C.R.No.365 of 2017, the said petition was disposed of with a direction that petitioner should not be detained solely based on that FIR. As such, the consistent criminal activity is continued even after the disposal of the said petition, which is clear from subsequent two other cases for the similar offence registered against the petitioner. 3. Mr. M. R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not found in possession of any prohibition article and not found even at the place in some of the cases. At the same time, he has further contended that in some of the cases, no muddamal is recovered from him. He has further contended that he has not been even named in some of the cases. He has further contended that registration of offence will not disturb the public order. He has further contended that out of six cases, four cases are stale cases. Based on such arguments, the learned advocate for the petitioner requested this Court to entertain this petition and grant him relief. 4. It is submitted by Mr. He has further contended that registration of offence will not disturb the public order. He has further contended that out of six cases, four cases are stale cases. Based on such arguments, the learned advocate for the petitioner requested this Court to entertain this petition and grant him relief. 4. It is submitted by Mr. M.R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner that in view of the judgment in the case of Deepak Bajaj versus State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2009 SC 628 , even petition filed at pre-execution stage can be entertained and power of the Court is not limited only to grounds mentioned in the case of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. Versus Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 496. The reliance placed on the aforesaid reported decisions is not well founded. Interference at pre-execution stage is not called for in each and every case. 5. For passing an order of preventive detention, the Detaining Authority has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction which is not based on whether the petitioner was arrested from the spot or not? Whether he was named in the FIR or not? Whether any muddamal article is recovered from him or not? Before the Detaining Authority, there may be a material in the form of the statement of the co-accused as also in the form of the statement of the accused himself. The Detaining Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction based on the material placed before it whether that material would be sufficient to prove that guilt or otherwise of the petitioner at a trial is not the relevant consideration for passing an order of preventive detention. 6. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Aruna Kumari Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 227 , the Court cannot go into the probative value of evidence before the Detaining Authority, therefore the arguments based on probative value of the material such as presence of the petitioner at the time of raid, seizure of any muddamal prohibition articles from him, named in FIR or not, pales into insignificance. 7. The jurisdiction exercised by the Detaining Authority is based on suspicion only. 7. The jurisdiction exercised by the Detaining Authority is based on suspicion only. The Authority has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed before it and has to consider whether the activity of a detenue is sufficient to preventively detain him or not? 8. For arriving at subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority, admissibility of a statement or document has no relevance. While passing an order of detention, the Detaining Authority is not conducting trial where case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The activities of a person, against whom an order of preventive detention is to be passed, has to be judged from the material placed before it. Whether he would be proved guilty at the conclusion of trial is not the criteria for arriving at a subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it is not the relevant consideration whether the accused is named in the FIR, whether the accused is found with any prohibition material and whether the material collected would be sufficient to prove guilty or otherwise of the accused at the time of trial or not. Only and only relevant consideration to arrive at subjective satisfaction about the activities of the petitioner based on relevant material placed before it. 9. Here in the present case, there is no averment that any proposal is made to preventively detain the petitioner. Over and above that, even there is no averment with regard to the order of detention passed so as to interfere in it at this, pre-execution stage. The activities of the petitioner, by registration of prohibition cases started from the year 2015 up to 2019 are self-eloquent. Therefore it can be presumed that he continues illegal activities consistently and he deals in such prohibition articles. Hence exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, at not only pre-execution stage but may be at pre-proposal stage is uncalled for. 10. As such, the learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to point out whether any order of preventive detention is passed or not? Since there is no order of preventive detention, as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner, is passed till today, the argument that out of six registered cases, four cases are stale one, is not required to be considered, that too, at this, not even pre-execution but at pre-proposal stage. 11. Since there is no order of preventive detention, as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner, is passed till today, the argument that out of six registered cases, four cases are stale one, is not required to be considered, that too, at this, not even pre-execution but at pre-proposal stage. 11. The arguments that mere registration of offence will not disturb the public order. The said arguments would be considered when the detention order if any, is passed based on only registration of offence and it is being considered by the Court. Here it is not the case where such argument is required to be considered at all. If at all there is any genuine apprehension of passing of preventive detention order, the petitioner would have proceeded further with the hearing of the petition itself after filing it in the month of March 2019, for nearly about three months, it has not been proceeded further so far therefore, apprehension is also not genuine. 12. Hence, this petition is rejected.