The impugned order of detention was passed on September 4, 2001, but till the appellant filed the writ petition on June 25, 2003, the order of detention had number been executed by serving it upon the appellant.
The facts of the case are few and number disputed.
The statement of the driver of the truck was recorded on August 29, 2001 and on the basis of his statement the companyplicity of the appellant was discovered.
Ltd., Kathmandu, Nepal, hired a vehicle owned by one Shri Vishwanath Prasad Kanu, a Nepalese citizen, for transportation of goods from the godown of the appellants firm at Raxaul to Nepal.
The companyrectness of the aforesaid view of the High Court is challenged before us.
The case of the appellant is that in the criminal case, he appeared in person uptil December 20, 2002, even after the order of detention had been passed, and yet numbereffort was made to arrest him.
The appellant has numberconcern with the Nepalese firm M s. Prakash International Carriers Pvt.
Ltd. The truck hired by the aforesaid Nepalese firm was detained at the Indian Land Custom Station at Raxaul and an idol kept in a wooden box was recovered.
The fact that the State Government did number exercise its power under Section 7 of the Act is number disputed before us.
No process under Section 7 of the Act was issued against him even though it is the case of the respondents that the appellant had been absconding.
The appellant claims to be one of the partners of M s. Prakash Transport, a partnership firm having its principal place of business at Kolkatta with branch offices all over India including one at Raxaul in the State of Bihar.
No.4928 Of 2003 P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
On February 22, 2002 a numberice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why penalty be number imposed, and a criminal case was also registered against him on April 16, 2002.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Accordingly his house at Kolkatta was searched on September 11, 2001 and his statement recorded.
This led to the search of the premises of the appellants firm at Raxaul and the search resulted in the recovery of another idol kept in a wooden box.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated September 17, 2003 dismissed the writ petition and held that this was number an appropriate case in which the High Court companyld exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order of detention even before its execution.
The firm is engaged in the business of transportation of goods by road by hiring public carrier trucks.
In this appeal the appellant impugns the order of detention passed against him by the State of Bihar on September 4, 2002 in exercise of powers companyferred by Section 3 i , ii and iii of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
According to the appellant, on August 28, 2001 a Nepalese firm M s. Prakash International Carriers Pvt.
Subsequently the appellant was released on bail in the criminal case on August 16, 2002.
