IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J.
Rose Maria Spices - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
WP(C) No. 8667 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 102 (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) - Writ petition for lifting the freeze on a bank account - The court directed the bank to limit the freeze to the amount specified by police authorities and to act promptly on police communication regarding the freeze. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial directions - The court emphasized the need for timely reporting of seizures to the Magistrate and the implications of failure to do so on the validity of the seizure. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to lift the freeze on their bank account, which was imposed by the bank following a requisition from police authorities, claiming the action was illegal and arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed with previous judgments, directing the bank to confine the freeze to the specified amount and requiring police to report on the seizure's status.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the bank's action in freezing the account and the procedural requirements for police reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the bank must act based on police communication regarding the freeze and that indefinite freezing without proper reporting is unjust.
Result: Writ petition ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petition is filed to direct the 8th respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.3893830476.
2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank account with the 8th respondent bank. The petitioner contends that the 8th respondent has frozen the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to a requisition from the 6th respondent. The action of the 8th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. and the learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent bank.
4. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent submits that, the disputed amount is Rs.2/-. The said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in Dr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India [2024 (1) KLT 826] held as follows:
“ a. The respondent Banks arrayed in these cases, are directed to confine the order of freeze against the accounts of the respective petitioners, only to the extent of the amounts mentioned in the order/requisition issued to them by the Police Authorities. This shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioners to deal with their accounts, and transact therein, beyond that limit.
b. The respondent – Police Authorities concerned are hereby directed to inform the respective Banks as to whether freezing of accounts of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions will require to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time, within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
c. On the Banks receiving the afore information/intimation from the Police Authorities, they will adhere with it and complete necessary action – either continuing the freeze for such period as mentioned therein; or withdrawing it, as the case may be.
d. If, however, no information or intimation is received by their Banks in terms of directions (b) above, the petitioners or such among them, will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all their contentions in these Writ Petitions are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future.”
6. Subsequently, this Court in Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd [2024 KHC OnLine 768], after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case (supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of Section 102 of the Code laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy [(1999) 7 SCC 685], Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat [(2018) 2 SCC 372] and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen and others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 895], has held thus:
“8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that, while delay in forthwith reporting the seizure to the Magistrate may only be an irregularity, total failure to report the seizure will definitely have a negative impact on the validity of the seizure. In such circumstances, account holders like the petitioner, most of whom are not even made accused in the crimes registered, cannot be made to wait indefinitely hoping that the police may act in tune with S.102 and report the seizure as mandated under Sub-section (3) at some point of time. In that view of the matter, the following direction is issued, in addition to the directions in Dr.Sajeer (supra).
(i) The Police officer concerned shall inform the banks whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with the S.102 is informed to bank within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.
(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the bank as well as the petitioner shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the offic
The court established that banks must limit account freezes to specified amounts and act promptly on police communications regarding seizures, ensuring timely reporting to the Magistrate.
The court mandates that bank account freezes must be limited to specified amounts and timely police reporting is essential to maintain validity.
The court established that bank account freezes must be limited to specified amounts and require timely police reporting to ensure fairness to account holders.
The court established that banks must limit account freezes to amounts specified by police requisitions and cannot indefinitely freeze accounts without timely reporting to the magistrate.
The court ruled that bank account freezes must be limited to specified amounts and require timely police reporting to ensure account holders are not unduly restricted.
Indefinite freezing of bank accounts without timely police reporting is unjust; banks must act based on police communication regarding the necessity of the freeze.
Debits on bank accounts can only be frozen for specific amounts mentioned in requisitions, with obligations on police to report compliance effectively.
The court established that bank accounts can only be frozen to the extent of amounts specified by police requisitions, and failure to report seizure to the magistrate invalidates the freeze.
The court established that debit freezing of bank accounts must comply with statutory limits and require proper police reporting to avoid unjust interference with individual rights.
Banks must limit account freezing to specified amounts and follow due process; failure to do so necessitates lifting the freeze.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.