JUDGMENT M. A. Chowdhary, J. - Petitioner in the instant petition has been taken into preventive custody under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in terms of the order of detention bearing No. DIVCOM'K'/210/2022 dated 18.03.2022 (for short 'the impugned order), passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir (for short 'detaining authority'). 2. The order of detention is challenged by the detenue through the medium of this petition and is sought to be quashed on the following grounds:- a) That, the order of detention being illegal and also being unconstitutional violative of fundamental as well as statutory rights of the detenue deserves to be quashed. b) That, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without applying its mind and the same is apparent from the record because allegedly the detenue is arrested in substantive offences and in this behalf mention of two FIRs bearing No. 20/2021 under Section 9/15 NDPS Act and No. 49/2021 under Section 8/18-20 NDPS Act registered in Police Station Shopian have allegedly been registered against the detenue and in both these FIRs the detenue is alleged to have been arrested. c) That the detenue was arrested on 17.03.2021 in case FIR No. 49/2021 and that the detention order and the grounds of detention do not mention what are the compelling reasons and grounds necessitating the preventive detention of the detenue as the detenue was already arrested and detained under substantive offences. d) That, right to make effective representation is totally denied to the detenue because the material in the shape of FIR and also seizure memo as well as other statements of witnesses, if any recorded during the investigation, and also report of the Investigating Officer concluding investigation in this behalf have in both the FIRs, mentioned in the grounds of detention, was not supplied to the detenue nor made known to the detenue or communicated to the detenue. e) That, neither copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and the other allied documents relied upon, have been supplied nor any translated copies of the same have been supplied to the detenue in a language known to him i.e., Kashmiri. 3. Counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents, resisting the petition. e) That, neither copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and the other allied documents relied upon, have been supplied nor any translated copies of the same have been supplied to the detenue in a language known to him i.e., Kashmiri. 3. Counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents, resisting the petition. It is contended that the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any malice or legal infirmity, inasmuch as safeguards provided under the Constitution as also the rights of the detenue have been followed while ordering his detention, as such, challenge thrown to the impugned order of detention is not sustainable, hence on this score the instant petition merits dismissal. It is contended that the detenue has been detained with a view to prevent him from indulging in illegal trade of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance after satisfying that the detenue is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of the society. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-social activities and, it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-social and unlawful activities. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record xerox copy of which has been produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that two FIRs bearing Nos. 20/2021 under Section 9/15 NDPS Act and No. 49/2021 under Section 8/18-20 NDPS Act, were registered at Police Station Shopian, involving the detenue. The contraband seized from the detenue indicates that he was fully involved in the illegal trade in the organized manner which is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of the society. It has been observed that the activities of the detenue have posed a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of the area. The detenue has made drug peddling his sole profession, which testifies his intent of criminal nature and in the larger interests of the society, particularly to save the career of the youth of the society, it was found imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of the Act. 6. The detenue has made drug peddling his sole profession, which testifies his intent of criminal nature and in the larger interests of the society, particularly to save the career of the youth of the society, it was found imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of the Act. 6. It would be apt to say that right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under 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 the case 'Maneka Gandhi vs. 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 is 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 owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defense. 7. 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 held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object are to save 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 general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 8. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. It is, for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 8. 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. Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, as said by the Supreme Court in the case 'Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1143 ', do not contribute in any way of the nature of punishment. 9. It would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of 'The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157 '. Para- 5 of the said judgment lays law on the point, which is profitable to be reproduced hereunder: '5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that the Central Government or the State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (8) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community ......... it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. According to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with respect to the individual person that his activities are directed against one or other of the three objects mentioned in the section, and that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such a manner. The wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One person may think one way, another the other way. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One person may think one way, another the other way. If, therefore, the grounds on which it is stated that the Central Government or the State Government was satisfied are such as a rational human being can consider connected in some manner with the objects which were to be prevented from being attained, the question of satisfaction except on the ground of mala fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether in a particular case the grounds are sufficient or not, according to the opinion of any person or body other than the Central Government or the State Government, is ruled out by the wording of the section. It is not for the court to sit in the place of the Central Government or the State Government and try to deter- mine if it would have come to the same conclusion as the Central or the State Government. As has been generally observed, this is a matter for the subjective decision of the Government and that cannot be substituted by an objective test in a court of law. Such detention orders are passed on information and materials which may not be strictly admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a court, but which the law, taking into consideration the needs and exigencies of administration, has allowed to be considered sufficient for the subjective decision of the Government.' 10. In light of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before detaining authority another view was possible. 11. The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. 11. The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that it is not the policy of the law of preventive detention. 12. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court in the case 'Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 276 ', and reiterated in the judgment dated 18th July 2019, rendered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5459 of 2019 titled 'Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad', has held that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action, acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in anti-national activities or 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. 13. Having glance of the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detenue is involved in the trade of illicit drug activities and did not shun the path of his nefarious and anti-social activities and continues to spoil the life and career of young generation making them the addicts of these drugs. The detenue was found actively involved in illegal business of drugs and the detaining authority after keeping in view the activities of the detenue, detained him under preventive custody, in terms of the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present petition. 14. The detenue was found actively involved in illegal business of drugs and the detaining authority after keeping in view the activities of the detenue, detained him under preventive custody, in terms of the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present petition. 14. Detention record reveals that the detenue, at the time of execution of the order of detention/warrant, had been served with the copies of detention warrant, grounds of detention and other documents total (06) leaves, which were read over and explained to the detenue in the language he fully understands. Supplying of the relevant record was sufficient to the detenue to make a meaningful representation, both to the detaining authority as well as Government, against his detention. 15. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the settled legal position, the petition in hand is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.