Preventive detention must comply with statutory procedures to safeguard personal liberty.

1. Shri Ankur Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents / State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
Present petition filed u / Art.226 of the Constitution of India assails the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Guna (M.P.) on 28.01.2021 vide P - 1 detaining the petitioner for a period of three months by invoking the provisions of S.3(3) of the National Security Act ("NSA" for brevity).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ankur Maheshwari has raised the following grounds in support of the aforesaid challenge to the impugned order:
(i) Violation of S.3(4) and S.3(5) of NSA.
(ii) Violation of S.8 of NSA in as much as non - communication of grounds of detention.
(iii) Petitioner has no criminal antecedents except Crime No.1235/2020 alleging offences punishable u / S.272, S.273, S.420 IPC and u / S.26, S.55, S.56 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which is insufficient to sustain an order of preventive detention.
(iv) Report of chemical analyst revealed that only edible oil was found to be unsafe for human consumption.

3. Bare facts attending the instant case reveal that petitioner deals in business of snacks (Namkeen) at Guna for which he obtained licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for running such business. On receiving complaint, the SDM along with food squad under "Food Adulteration Removal Drive" reached the spot on 20.11.2020 where factory premises was found to be locked. When no response could be gathered having several attempts made, on the directions of SDM the factory premises was unlocked. When enquired, it was informed by the persons in the vicinity that factory belongs to Choubey Food Products owned by Amar Choubey. When factory premises was inspected, food stuffs and raw material lying thereat were prima facie found to be substandard, misbranded and not according to the provisions of FSSAI. Samples taken were sent for analysis. On that basis, FIR dated 21.11.2020 bearing Crime No.1235/2020 was registered at Police Station Guna, District Guna (M.P.) against the petitioner alleging offences punishable u / S.272, S.273, S.420 IPC and u / S.26, S.55, S.56 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Apprehending arrest, bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. was preferred by petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 04.01.2021 in Mcrc.52591/2020. The impugned order of preventive detention was passed on 28.01.2021. The District Magistrate, Guna on 30.01.2021 supplied the grounds for detention and supportive material to the petitioner. On 01.02.2021, the District Magistrate forwarded the impugned order along with grounds of detention and supportive material to the State for approval. The State vide order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure R / 1) affirmed the impugned order on 08.02.2021. On 08.02.2021 itself the State forwarded the impugned order along with grounds and the supportive relevant material to the Central Government.

4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of preventive detention on the ground that reasons for passing the impugned order do not pass the test of breach of public order but this Court refrains from going into the said ground of merits since the petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons infra.

5. The concept of preventive detention is not punitive. Its purpose is to prevent the breach of public order or its likelihood in future. Thus, by its very nature, power of preventive detention is exercised to prevent and not to punish. In the present case, indisputably, apprehending arrest the petitioner preferred an application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. which was