Statutory time limit for release of attached property bars an absconding accused's application after two years

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, an absconding accused may seek release of attached property only within the statutory time and only on satisfying the conditions that he did not abscond to avoid execution of the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation sufficient to enable attendance. The Kerala HC held that once two years from the date of attachment had expired, the accused's statutory right to move for release was lost. The claim and objection remedy remained available to third parties, but any independent civil remedy was outside the scope of the revision. The application for release was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an absconding accused, whose property had been attached under the Code of Criminal Procedure, could seek release of the property under the restoration provision after the expiry of two years from the date of attachment.

Analysis: The attachment scheme under the Code is intended to secure the appearance of an absconding accused. Property attached under the attachment provision becomes subject to the control of the State Government, but the statute preserves limited rights: a third party may invoke the claim and objection procedure, while the absconding accused may seek release only by appearing within the proclamation period or, if he appears or is apprehended later, only within two years from the date of attachment and only after satisfying both statutory conditions, namely, that he had not absconded to avoid execution of the warrant and had no notice of the proclamation sufficient to enable attendance within the specified time. Once the two-year period expires, the statutory right of the absconding accused to move for release under that provision is lost. The Court also held that the question of any independent civil remedy was outside the scope of the revision.

Conclusion: The application for release of the attached property was not maintainable after the expiry of two years from the date of attachment, and the dismissal by the courts below was upheld.

---