Jai And Sons Private Limited vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4496 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jai And Sons Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 25 February, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                             2025:KER:15918
WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

                                    1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA,

                             1946

                    WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         JAI AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
         THARUVAI RAMASUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN, AGED 59
         YEARS, SON OF SRI. THARUVAI VEERARAGHAVAN
         RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CIN NO. U50300TN 2015 PTC 102
         055, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 33/15,
         SREENIVASA PERUMAL SANNIDHI, SECOND STREET, ROYA
         PETTAH, CHENNAI, PIN - 600014


         BY ADVS.
         T.MADHU
         C.R.SARADAMANI
         M.ABDUL KAREEM
         RENJISH S. MENON
         ALEENA JOSE
         AVANTHIKA R.
         KARTHIK KRISHNA M.




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE UNION OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
         AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

    2    THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, HEAD OFFICE,
         MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400029
                                                           2025:KER:15918
WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

                                         2
    3          THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
               OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE
               HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN - 695014

    4          THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT,
               PIN - 670643

    5          THE AXIS BANK
               GOPALAPURAM BRANCH, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               MANAGER, PIN - 600086

               DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
               GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK
               SC SRI MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)      HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   25.02.2025,   THE       COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:15918
WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

                                   3

                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the 5 th

respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's

bank account bearing No.918020035179067.

2.The petitioner is the holder of the above

bank account with the 5th respondent bank. The

petitioner states that the 5th respondent has frozen

the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the

requisition received from the 4th respondent. The

action of the 5th respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India, and the learned Government Pleader

and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

4.The learned counsel for the 5th respondent

bank submitted that the disputed amount is 2025:KER:15918 WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

Rs.1,230/-. 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 2025:KER:15918 WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

(supra) and taking into consideration Section 102 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 106 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and

the interpretation of Section 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 reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with the S.102 is informed to bank within one month ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment, the bank shall lift the debit freeze imposed on the petitioner's account.

(ii) In order to enable the police to comply with the above direction, the bank as well as the petitioner 2025:KER:15918 WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the officer concerned and retain proof of such service.

7. I am in complete agreement with the views in

Dr.Sajeer and Nazeer K.T cases (supra). The above

principles squarely apply to the facts of the case on

hand.

In the above conspectus, I dispose of the writ

petition by passing the following directions:

(i) The 5th respondent Bank is directed to confine the freezing order of the petitioner's bank account only to the extent of the amount mentioned in the order/requisition issued by the Police Authorities. The above exercise shall be done forthwith, so as to enable the petitioner to transact through its account beyond the said limit;

(ii). The Police Authorities are hereby directed to inform the Bank as to whether freezing of the petitioner's account will be required to be continued even in the afore manner; and if so, for what further time;

(iii) On the Bank 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;

2025:KER:15918 WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is received by the Bank in terms of direction (ii) above, the petitioner will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for which purpose, all its contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to them, to impel in future;

(v) The jurisdictional police officers shall inform the Bank whether the seizure of the bank account has been reported to the jurisdictional Magistrate and if not, the time limit within which the seizure will be reported. If no intimation as to the compliance or the proposal to comply with Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is received by the Bank within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Bank shall lift the debit freeze or remove the lien, as the case may be, on the petitioner's bank account;

(vi) In order to enable the Police to comply with the above direction, the Bank, as well as the petitioner, shall forthwith serve a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional officer and retain proof of such service.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm25/2/2025 2025:KER:15918 WP(C) NO. 4170 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4170/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER INFORMING THE FREEZING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/1/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/9/2023 IN W.P.(C)NO.30433/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/2/2024 IN W.P.(C)NO.6929/2024 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT