Preventive detention cannot substitute ordinary criminal law when alleged conduct is already punishable and prosecution is adequate.

Preventive detention is an exceptional power and cannot replace ordinary criminal prosecution where the alleged conduct is already punishable under the ordinary law. The Court held that allegations of bootlegging and illicit distillation, even if proceedings under prohibition law would take time, did not justify detention unless the preventive object was genuinely necessary and ordinary criminal process was insufficient. Strict scrutiny is required because Articles 19 and 21 protect personal liberty. The detention order was therefore not sustainable and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a preventive detention order could be sustained when the alleged conduct was already punishable under the ordinary criminal law and the ordinary legal process was sufficient.

Analysis: The detention was founded on alleged violations under the preventive detention statute on the premise that the detenue was a bootlegger and that normal criminal proceedings would take time. The record also showed allegations under the prohibition law for illicit distillation of liquor. The governing principle applied was that preventive detention is an exceptional power, intended to prevent conduct prejudicial to public order, and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. Where the alleged acts can be effectively dealt with under the ordinary law, recourse to preventive detention is not justified. The constitutional protection of personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 requires strict scrutiny before such power is invoked.

Conclusion: The preventive detention order was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be invoked merely because criminal prosecution may take time if the alleged conduct is adequately punishable under the ordinary law; the power may be used only where its preventive object is genuinely required and ordinary criminal law is insufficient.

---