TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies lifting property attachment after two years due to failure to meet appearance condition under Criminal Procedure Code.</h1> The court dismissed the petitioner's request to lift the attachment and release the property after two years from the date of attachment. It was held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether an accused, whose complaint was withdrawn and consequently acquitted, can seek release of attachment and restoration of property after two years from the date of attachment u/s 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, apply to the period of two years mentioned in u/s 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Summary:Issue 1: Release of Attachment and Restoration of Property after Two Years- The petitioner was accused of an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate issued summons, and upon non-appearance, initiated steps u/s 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, leading to the attachment of the petitioner's property.- The petitioner was acquitted after the complainant withdrew the complaint u/s 257 of the Code.- The petitioner sought to quash the attachment order and release the property u/s 482 of the Code, arguing that the purpose of attachment was served by his acquittal.- The Court held that the petitioner did not appear within two years from the date of attachment, a mandatory condition u/s 85(3) of the Code. Therefore, he cannot request the release of the property after the expiry of two years.- The Court emphasized that the period of two years is not a limitation period but a condition precedent for requesting the release of the property.Issue 2: Application of Limitation Act to the Period of Two Years- The petitioner argued that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act should apply to the two-year period mentioned in u/s 85(3) of the Code.- The Court disagreed, stating that the two-year period is not a limitation period but a condition precedent. Therefore, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply.- The Court referred to the decision in Pharma Kuries (P) Ltd. v. Soju, clarifying that the observation regarding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to u/s 85(3) was obiter and not binding.Additional Observations:- The Court noted that the attachment does not confer title to the Government but only prevents alienation. The Government has the power to sell the attached property, and the petitioner can request the Government to release the property if it is not sold.- If other persons have an interest in the attached property, they can move the Magistrate u/s 84(1) of the Code or request the Government for appropriate relief.Conclusion:- The petitioner's request to lift the attachment and release the property after two years from the date of attachment is dismissed.- Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the period of two years mentioned in u/s 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.- The petitioner is advised to seek remedy from the Government for the release of the property.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
