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) 2525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
Headstar Global Pvt. Limited, Represented By Its Director/ Authorized Signatory, Sreekumar C.S., S/o. Sreedharan Nair – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No.3740 of 2025
Decided On : 02-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Babu S. Nair
For the Respondents: Shri. Sarathkumar T.S., Smt. Jismemol James, Shri. Shyam Kumar M.P, Shri. Achankunju P.C, Shri. Rony V.P., Smt. Vishnuja Vasudevan.
Other Present : PP M. P. Prasanth.

The police must follow proper statutory procedures under Sections 102 and 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and BNSS for freezing bank accounts, linking them directly to criminal activity.

Headnote:(A) Bharat Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 94, 106, and 107 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 102 - Bank account freezing - Petitioner challenged debit freeze order by police for being unjustified without following proper procedure - Court emphasized that seizure under Section 102 requires that property be linked to crime - Attachment and freeze under Section 107 requires Magistrate direction. (Paras 3, 12-14)

(B) Investigative Powers - Police's authority to freeze accounts is limited and requires evidence linking the property to crime - The seizure cannot occur without reasonable belief that property is obtained from criminal activity. (Paras 10, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a private company, sought to unfreeze its bank account after funds received were linked to an alleged fraud concerning the non-delivery of exported sugar, resulting in police freezing the account under investigation of a complaint filed by a foreign company.

Findings of Court:
Court quashed the order freezing the bank account and allowed the petitioner to access its funds, stressing that proper procedures under law must be followed for attachment.

Issues: Whether the police properly froze the petitioner’s account without following statutory procedures, and if reasonable suspicion linked the funds to criminal activity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the police must comply with the prescribed legal procedure for freezing assets, and merely transferring money between accounts without proof of crime does not justify account freezing.

Result: Petition allowed; debit freeze lifted.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The police must follow proper statutory procedures under Sections 102 and 107 of the CrPC and BNSS for freezing bank accounts linked to criminal activity (!) (!) (!) . - Section 102 allows seizure of property only if it is linked to crime or suspected to be so; mere transfer of funds without crime linkage is insufficient (!) (!) (!) . - Section 107 provides that attachment in BNSS must be pursued with Magistrate approval and show-cause, to determine proceeds of crime; seizure vs. attachment are distinct (seizure: Sec 102; attachment: Sec 107) (!) (!) (!) . - The court in this case quashed the debit freeze order and lifted the freeze, directing that the proper procedure under BNSS Sec. 107 be used if warranted (!) . - Earlier jurisprudence recognizes bank accounts as "property" under Sec 102 and that seizure can be justified only if there is direct link to the offence investigated (Tapas D. Neogy, Teesta Setalvad references) (!) (!) . - BNSS defines proceeds of crime to include property obtained from criminal activity or its value; attachment aims to secure such proceeds for forfeiture/distribution (!) (!) . - The impugned order failed to demonstrate adherence to Section 107 BNSS; thus lifting of debit freeze was appropriate (!) . - This judgment clarifies distinction and timelines between securing evidence (Seizure under Sec 102/BNSS Sec 106) and securing proceeds (Attachment under BNSS Sec 107) (!) . - The court notes potential for ex parte interim attachment if delay would defeat object, but still requires constitutional adherence and show-cause procedures (!) (!) . - The case involves cross-entity transfers among related parties as alleged proceeds of crime; requires rigorous demonstration of provenance of funds for attachment (!)

What is the proper procedure for freezing or attaching bank accounts under Section 102, 106, and 107 of BNSS/CrPC in cases linking funds to crime?

What is the court's view on whether police can unilaterally freeze a bank account without following statutory attachment/forfeiture procedures?

What are the required evidentiary and procedural links between transfers and criminal activity to justify account freezing or attachment?


Table of Content
1. background of the case regarding fund transfers. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning the validity of freezing bank accounts. (Para 3 , 4)
3. order allowing the petitioner to lift the debit freeze. (Para 5)
4. court's interpretation of section 102 and 107 of the criminal procedure code. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. conclusion on bank account freezing procedure. (Para 14)

ORDER :

V.G. ARUN, J.

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 ₹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, ₹46,50,525 was transferred to another entity, M/s Headstar Trading LLP and from that account, ₹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 crime. While under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 105C to 105H deals with the

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