SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
V.G. ARUN, J.
Headstar Global Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 3740 of 2025
Decided On : 02-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Babu S. Nair
For the Respondents: Sarathkumar T.S., Jismemol James, Shyam Kumar M.P., Achankunju P.C., Vishnuja Vasudevan, M.P. Prasanth, Rony V.P.

A police officer must establish a direct link to criminal activity before freezing a bank account, following due process under Section 107 of the BNSS.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 102, 106; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 107 - A police officer may seize property linked to a crime, but cannot freeze a third party's account without proper procedure. The court found that the funds in the appellant's account, derived from a transaction involving alleged fraud, could only be attached following the procedure outlined in Section 107 of the BNSS. (Paras 4, 14)

(B) Jurisdiction of Police - The police cannot freeze a bank account without establishing a direct link to criminal activity and must follow the prescribed legal procedures for attachment. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a private limited company, challenged the freezing of its bank account based on an allegation of fraud involving another company, where funds were transferred under suspicious circumstances. The appellant argued that the freezing order was improperly issued.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the freezing order, directing the lifting of the debit freeze, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to legal procedures for asset attachment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the police could freeze the appellant's account without following the due process outlined in the relevant statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a police officer must establish a direct link to criminal activity for freezing assets and that the procedure under Section 107 of BNSS must be followed for attachment of proceeds of crime.

Result: The impugned order is quashed, and the debit freeze on the bank account is lifted.

Table of Content
1. the factual background of the case and the parties involved. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by the appellant and the respondent regarding the freezing of bank accounts. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of the legal provisions regarding seizure and freezing of accounts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. the court establishes the legal reasoning regarding the attachment of proceeds of crime. (Para 10 , 14)
5. conclusion to quash the impugned order and lift the debit freeze. (Para 15)

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of export/import of food grains, pulses, and sugar, is aggrieved by Annexure D order, rejecting its application to unfreeze the company's bank account.

2. The essential facts are as under:

M/s. Apple Middle East General Trading LLC, located in the United Arab Emirates, is engaged in the import and export of food grains and other food articles to the Middle East. The aforementioned company having got impleaded as a party to these proceedings through its Public Relations Manager, will hereafter be referred to as the 3rd respondent for convenience.

As part of its business, the 3rd respondent raised proforma invoice with Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. through Headstar Trading LLP, for the export of 378 metric tons of sugar from Kochi to the UAE. As advance towards the order, the 3rd respondent remitted Rs. 49.53 lakhs to the account of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. maintained at the Kochi branch of the IDBI Bank. The advance payment was made based on the assurance that the consignment would reach the UAE within 30 days. However, contrary to the assurance, the sugar was never despatched from India. Upon inquiries, it came to light that the commitment to deliver the consignment was made by concealing the fact that, due to a change in Government policy, it was no longer possible to export sugar from India. On being confronted with this fact, the Directors of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. promised to refund the advance amount, but failed to fulfill the promise. Thereupon it became evident that the intention from the very inception was to cheat the 3rd respondent by collecting the advance amount based on the false promise. The complaint in this regard filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent led to the registration of Crime No. 732 of 2024 at the Kalamassery Police Station against the Directors of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd., for offences under Sections 406 and 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the complaint, it was alleged that out of the advance paid by the 3rd respondent, Rs.46,50,525 was transferred to another entity, M/s Headstar Trading LLP and from that account, Rs.52,44,750 was transferred to the account of Headstar Global Pvt.Ltd./the petitioner. After registering the crime, the Investigating Officer issued Annexure B notice, directing the bank to debit freeze the petitioner's account. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Annexure C requesting the jurisdictional Magistrate to lift the debit freeze. That petition stands dismissed by Annexure D order.

3. Assailing the impugned order and the direction to debit freeze the petitioner's account, Advocate Babu S. Nair put forth the following contentions:

Sections 94 and 106 of the BNSS does not empower the police to seize/freeze the account of a third party. While Section 94 has no application, Section 106 would apply only to tangible properties which are believed to be stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. There is no such allegation in the petitioner’s case. On the other hand, the direction to debit freeze the account is issued solely on the ground that money from the account of Spezia Organic Condiments Pvt. Ltd. was transferred to the account of M/s.Headstar Trading LLP and thereafter, to the petitioner’s account. These transfers were effected in the regular course of business and cannot therefore be termed even as proceeds of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top