Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Friday dismissed the petition of an alleged drug peddler and upheld a preventive detention order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, dated 21 November 2017, against him on the grounds that the accused has been involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
“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 and ammunition and money laundering. The drug trafficking and abuse has continued its significant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of many persons around the globe,” the court said.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar upheld the order on the grounds that the accused, Farooq Ahmed Dar, has been informed with sufficient clarity of what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing the detention order. The detaining authority has narrated the facts and figures that made it exercise its powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, and record subjective satisfaction that the detenu was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to keep him from committing any act within the meaning of illicit traffic. The detaining authority has informed the detenu that he is an accused in a case involving illegal trafficking of narcotic substances, which poses a serious and great threat to society, particularly the health, wealth and welfare of the people, especially of the young generation. So viewed, the detenu is not to be heard saying that any of his Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while the detention order in question was slapped on him and thereafter executed.
“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.”