Sanu Sam vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 2852 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sanu Sam vs Union Of India on 24 January, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:5620



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 4TH MAGHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 40934 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

            SANU SAM
            AGED 24 YEARS
            S/O SAMUEL, SAJU BHAVAN, NADUKKUNNU,
            MEEYANNOOR, VELIYAM WEST,POOYAPPALLY,
            KOLLAM, PIN - 691537

            BY ADVS.
            ALBIN A. JOSEPH
            SUSANTH SHAJI
            SIDHARTH O.
            MUHAMMED MISBAHU K.
            NEKHA VARGHESE


RESPONDENTS:
     1     UNION OF INDIA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
           NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

    2       RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS, GENERAL MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE
            BANERJI ROAD ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI, PIN - 682018

    3       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
            CANARA BANK , HEAD OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, SPENCER TOWER,
            M.G ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560001

    4       THE MANAGER
            CANARA BANK, GT BUILDINGS, OYOOR ROAD, NEAR POOYAPALLY
            JUNCTION, POOYAPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691537

    5       STATION HOUSE OFFICER ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
            CYBER POLICE STATION, CRIME BRANCH, WEST REGION FIRST
            FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX RD, OPPOSITE ICICI BANK, G
            BLOCK BKC, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI,
            MAHARASHTRA ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )

            BY ADV Sindhu
                                                     2025:KER:5620
WP(C) NO.40934 OF 2024           2



OTHER PRESENT:

          DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:5620
WP(C) NO.40934 OF 2024            3



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of January, 2025

The writ petition is filed to direct the fourth

respondent bank to lift the debit freezing of the

petitioner's bank account bearing No. 110198137699.

2. The petitioner is the holder of the above

bank account with the fourth respondent bank. The

petitioner's bank account has been debit frozen by the

fourth respondent pursuant to the requisitions received

from the fifth respondent. The action of the fourth

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 counsel appearing for the

respondents 3 and 4.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 3

and 4 submitted that even though the requisition has 2025:KER:5620

been received from the fifth respondent, no amount has

been mentioned in the requisition. 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], 2025:KER:5620

after concurring with the view in Dr.Sajeer's case

(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 2025:KER:5620

direction, the bank as well as the petitioner 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 fourth 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 his 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;

(iv). If, however, no information or intimation is 2025:KER:5620

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 his contentions in this Writ Petition are left open and reserved to him, 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 mtk/24.1.25 2025:KER:5620

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40934/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit - P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS.

Exhibit-P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY INDIA POST DATED 18/11/2024.

Exhibit-P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/10/2024 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY INDIA POST DATED 18/11/2024.