The Court has the discretion to consider applications to lift attachments under Section 85(3) of Cr.P.C. beyond the two-year period if a justifiable cause is shown.

1. Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a private complaint filed for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and he failed to appear before the Court during trial. Hence, he has been declared as 'proclaimed offender' and his property was attached by the trial Court vide order dated 16.06.2004 in C.C.No.362 of 2003. While so, later the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It appears that the said cheque bounced case has been transferred from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi to the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam and re-numbered as C.C.No.834 of 2008.

2. On 08.12.2012, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn in Crl.M.P.No.694 of 2012. Under such circumstances, the attachment of the property, pursuant to the proclamation was not made known to the petitioner for long time, till he applied for encumbrance certificate from the third respondent, the Sub-Registrar, Vedaranyam. Having come to know about the attachment in the case, which has already been ended in dismissal, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.3973 of 2016, to lift the attachment and intimate the same to the third respondent herein.

3.The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, has dismissed the application on the ground that any attachment made under Section 83 of Cr.P.C, ought to have been raised or cancelled, within a period of 2 years, failing which the attachment made cannot be lifted. In support of the said finding, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate has relied upon two Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the cases of M.C. Babu Vs. State of Kerala dated 01.07.2011 in Crl.M.C.No.1106 of 2011 and Moideen Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police dated 13.08.2010 in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1015 of 2004 (B).

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 3; perused the petition and the impugned order.

5. The scope of Section 83 Cr.P.C is to attach the property of a person who is absconding or concealing himself defying warrant against him. Once proclamation is issued against such person, his property can be attached as per Section 82 Cr.P.C. Under Section 85 (1) Cr.P.C., the proclaimed person shall appear within the time specified in the proclamation order and on his appearance, the Court shall make an order to release the property from attachment. Under Section 85 (2), if the proclaimed person does not appear, within the time specified in the proclamation, the property under the attachment shall be at the disposal of the State Government; but it shall not be sold until the expiration of six months from the date of the attachment or until any claim preferred or objection made under Section 84 Cr.P.C. Sub-clause (3) of Section 85 Cr.P.C., which is relevant for the present case is that if within two years from the date of attachment, any person whose property is or has been at the disposal of the State Government, under sub-section (2), appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought before the Court by whose order the property was attached, proves to the satisfaction of such Court that he did not abscond or conceal himself for the purpose of avoiding execution of the warrant, and that he had no such notice of the proclamation as to enable him to attend within the time specified therein, such property shall be delivered to him or if it had been sold after satisfying all the cost incurred in consequence of the attachment his residue shall be returned.

6. In this case, the peculiar facts appeared to be is that the accused failed to appear before the trial Court. Hence, he was declared as the 'proclaimed offender' and consequently, attachment order has been issued on 16.06.2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur District. Though, the accused was apprehended subsequent to the proclamation, he has n