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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
Mohammed Saifullah - Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India, Rep. by its Governor and ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.25631 of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kably Taiyab Khan
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Udayakumar, Government Advocate, Mr. C. Mohan

Freezing of bank accounts must follow due process, ensuring transparency and protection of individuals' financial rights, especially during investigations.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, Section 102 - Freezing of bank accounts - Unilateral freezing orders issued by law enforcement must inform account holders of the basis and duration of such actions - Due process requires transparency to prevent financial harm to individuals. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 8)

(B) Fundamental Rights - The freezing of an entire bank account without a clear basis or timeframe violates the constitutional rights of individuals to conduct trade and maintain their livelihood. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced account freezing due to an investigation into suspected dealings with cryptocurrency, without being informed of the reasons behind the action or its duration, impacting his financial dealings significantly. (Paras 4, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that freezing the entire account without specifying the amount in question violates fundamental rights and directed the bank to de-freeze the account while imposing a lien on a specified amount. (Para 8)

Issues: The main issues addressed included the legality and ethical considerations surrounding the freezing of bank accounts without informing account holders of the basis or timeframes. (Paras 1, 2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that freezing orders must be executed correctly, ensuring that the account holder is notified and protected from undue financial hardship. Orders should not blanket freeze accounts without quantifiable limits. (Paras 1, 8)

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to de-freeze the account subject to conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points with their corresponding references:

  • Issue with unilateral freezing: The freezing of bank accounts on instruction from local police or the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal often catches account holders by surprise, causing significant damage to their daily financial lives and severing their business lifelines before the reason for the freeze is understood (!) .
  • Requirement for transparency and notification: While statutes empower agencies to freeze accounts, courts have held that accounts cannot be frozen perpetually without informing the account holder of the reason and the extent of the freeze, noting frequent failures by agencies to intimate account holders or the jurisdictional court (!) .
  • Specific case facts: In this case, the petitioner's account was frozen by the bank following instructions from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the Telangana Cyber Crime Bureau regarding a cryptocurrency investigation, where the suspected amount was approximately Rs. 2,48,835/- (!) .
  • Disproportionate freezing: Although only a specific sum was suspected, the bank froze the entire account balance (Rs. 9,69,580/-), and neither the investigating agency nor the bank informed the petitioner of the reasons or the duration of the freeze for over a year (!) .
  • Need for guidelines: Previous court orders have directed police commissioners to issue circulars ensuring no colorable exercise of power during account freezing, yet these guidelines are often not observed in practice (!) .
  • Precedents and alternative measures: Courts have referenced Supreme Court judgments (e.g., M.T. Enrica Lexie, Teesta Atul Setalvad, Shento Varghese) to direct account holders to execute bond undertakings to deposit amounts if found to be tainted money, rather than blanket freezing (!) .
  • Violation of fundamental rights: Freezing an entire account without quantifying the specific amount or the time period violates fundamental rights related to trade, business, and livelihood (!) .
  • Court's final direction: The court directed the bank to de-freeze the account and place a lien only over the specific suspected sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, permitting the petitioner to operate the account while ensuring a minimum balance of that amount is maintained (!) .

Table of Content
1. unilateral freezing of accounts raises issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. insufficient communication on account freezing. (Para 3 , 4)
3. guidelines for account freezing must be followed. (Para 5 , 6)
4. freezing orders must not violate fundamental rights. (Para 7 , 8)
5. writ petition disposed with ordered de-freezing. (Para 9)

ORDER :

G. Jayachandran, J.

The issue by many of the citizens currently face is the freezing of the account on instruction from the local Police or from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Many a times, the account holders have been taken into surprise that by such order of freezing, before they could realize as to why and for what purpose the accounts are freezed, enough damages are caused to their day to day financial life, since the very life- line of the business gets severed by such unilateral orders of account freezing passed by the Police.

2. No doubt, the statutes empower the investigation agency to request the Bank to freeze the account pending investigation and intimate it forthwith to the jurisdiction Court, but whether the power is properly exercised or not is the moot question now looming large and in the several judgments of the Courts across the India, it had been categorically held that there cannot be freezing of account perpectually without intimating the account holders what for their account is freezed and what extent it has to be freezed. Even then, day in and day out, this Court receives applications to defreeze the account pointing out the failure of the investigating agency not only to the account holders, even to the jurisdictional Court not intimating about the freezing of the account as per Section 102 of Cr.P.C. equivalent to 106 of BNSS Act.

3. This is a case where the petitioner who is suspected to be dealing with cryptocurrency, the case is under investigation by the Cyber Crime Bureau of Cyberabad, Telangana, registered on 16.05.2023. The fifth respondent Bank has been instructed to freeze the account of the petitioner herein. The communication received by the Bank indicates that around Rs.2,48,835/- is the suspected money involved in the subject matter of the crime under investigation. Meticulously, in reference to the instructions received from National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the notice from the Telugana Cyber Crime Bureau, the fifth respondent has freezed the account.

4. In the said account of the petitioner a sum of Rs.9,69,580/- stands as balance. Even after lapse of more than a year neither the Investigating Agency nor the Bank had informed the petitioner as to why the account is freezed and how long the account will be kept under freeze. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for Mandamus to release the entire amount in his account by ordering de-freezing of the account.

5. When similar issues came up for consideration in Crl. OP No.10569 of 2021 vide order dated 18.06.2021, the learned Judge of his Court, directed the Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Greater Chennai, to give necessary instructions and directions to his personnel in conducting investigation in cases were freezing of account is required and ensure that there is no colourable exercise of power. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, vide Circular Memorandum dated 24.06.2021, has issued a directional instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners of Police in District and CCB, CWC to ensure that there is no deviation of the instructions. It is appropriate to reproduce the circular.

6. Unfortunately, in most of the cases the guidelines issued in this Circular not observed. Later when an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP No.13509 of 2024 considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.T.Enrica Lexie and another –vs- Doramma and others reported in MANU/SC/0409/2012, Teesta Atul Setalvad and others –vs- The State of Gujarat and others , reported in (2018) 2 SCC 372 and Shento Varghese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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