An asset freezing order requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and lack of adequate justification renders the order unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1824 and 1651 of 2025 dated 10.11.2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The petitioner’s husband, G.Prakash, Sanitary Officer, Health Section, Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram is an accused in Crime No.6 of 2025 for offence under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is a trap case. Pursuant to the trap, house search conducted on 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025, following the house search, the locker jointly operated by the petitioner and her husband opened and inventory taken on 05.06.2025. During the course of investigation, the respondent sent a letter to the City Union Bank, Avadi Branch to freeze the joint locker and Bank Account No.500101012711727 of petitioner and her husband. Further directed the bank authorities not to permit the petitioner to operate the bank locker, in which, gold jewels and cash found, against which, the petitioner filed petitions before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1824 of 2025 seeking to de-freeze the joint Account No.500101012711727 and Crl.M.P.No.1651 of 2025 to return her gold jewels, i.e., 519.3 grams and cash of Rs.6,00,000/- found in the locker. By a common order dated 10.11.2025, the trial Court dismissed the petitions, against which, present revisions filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2870 of 2025 is that the petitioner’s husband G.Prakash earlier owned a property measuring 1134 sq. ft., situated at Mahalakshmi Nagar with CMDA approval. The petitioner’s husband executed a registered Power of Attorney favouring S.Ganesh by Document No.7076/2025 in SRO, Kundrathur on 19.04.2025, to sell the property. The Power of Attorney, S.Ganesh agreed to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- and he was permitted to deal with the property as he likes. In connection with this transaction, the petitioner’s husband executed a cash receipt with the power agent and received a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, through bank transfer by way of RTGS on 17.04.2025.

4. The learned counsel submitted that there must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement of the bank account with the commission of any crime or offence to freeze or to issue prohibitory order in operation of bank account. In this case, without any reasonable suspicion and materials, withholding the account of the petitioner and her husband is unsustainable in law. Due to the said restrictions, petitioner is facing difficulties, as she is unable to operate the account or have access to her funds. Prior to freezing the bank account, there was no communication informing the petitioner. Further, even after the freezing of the account she was not informed. Only when the petitioner attempted to operate the account, she was informed that the account was under freeze at the instance of the respondent. The petitioner approached the respondent, who informed the petitioner to file appropriate petition before the Court but to get appropriate orders. Thereafter, she filed the above petitions before the trial Court, but the trial Court finding that the Power of Attorney document executed does not contain any recital with regard to any amount and hence the petitioner’s contention that the sum of Rs.19,00,000/- received from S.Ganesh is a lawful transaction is not acceptable. Further the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- transferred on 17.04.2025 but the Power of Attorney document executed on 19.04.2025, i.e., on a later date. Hence, the Power of Attorney cannot be correlated to the transfer of Rs.19,00,000/-. This contention might not be pr