Restoration of attached property requires compliance with Section 85(3) within two years; Limitation Act extensions do not apply.

The two-year period in Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a substantive condition precedent for restoration of attached property, not a mere time limit for filing an application. A proclaimed person must appear or be brought before the court within that period and satisfy the court on the statutory requirements; once the period expires, the court lacks power to order release of the attachment. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to override this specific bar. For the same reason, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not extend the two-year period under Section 85(3).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person whose complaint was withdrawn and who was consequently acquitted could, after expiry of two years from the date of attachment of his property, seek release of attachment and restoration of the property under Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the two-year period mentioned in Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a person whose complaint was withdrawn and who was consequently acquitted could, after expiry of two years from the date of attachment of his property, seek release of attachment and restoration of the property under Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The power to release attached property under Section 85(3) is linked to two mandatory conditions: the proclaimed person must appear or be brought before the Court within two years from the date of attachment, and must satisfy the Court that he did not abscond or conceal himself to evade execution of the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation sufficient to attend within time. The period of two years is not treated as a mere limitation period for filing an application, but as a substantive condition precedent to the Court's power to restore the property. Once that period expires, the Court loses jurisdiction to order restoration under that provision. Resort to the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to bypass this specific statutory bar.

Conclusion: No. After expiry of two years from the date of attachment, the person cannot seek release of attachment and restoration of the property under Section 85(3), even if the complaint was withdrawn and acquittal followed.

Issue (ii): Whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the two-year period mentioned in Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The two-year stipulation in Section 85(3) is not an ordinary period of limitation for making an application; it is one of the twin statutory conditions governing the Court's power to restore attached property. Since the provision does not operate as a limitation period in the usual sense, the general provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not extend that period. The earlier observation to the contrary was treated as not governing this question.

Conclusion: No. Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to the two-year period under Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy under Section 85(3) was unavailable after the expiry of two years, so the request for release of attachment could not be granted in proceedings under Section 482; the petitioner was left to pursue any remedy before the Government or other interested persons under the appropriate provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The two-year requirement in Section 85(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a substantive condition precedent to restoration of attached property and not a mere limitation period; therefore, the Limitation Act does not extend it and inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to defeat the express statutory scheme.

---