Debits on bank accounts can only be frozen for specific amounts mentioned in requisitions, with obligations on police to report compliance effectively.

1. The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 4 and 5 banks to lift the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts bearing Nos.50100404401993 and 17250100056086.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above bank accounts with the respondents 4 and 5 banks. The petitioner contends that the respondents 4 and 5 banks have frozen the petitioner's bank accounts pursuant to the requisition received from the police. The action of the respondents 4 and 5 is illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, even though Ext.P3 requisition was received from the 4th respondent, no amount has been mentioned in the said requisition. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.22,380/-. 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 S.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now S.106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and the interpretation of S.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 reporte