Kerala High Court
Punnad Service Co Op Bank vs M/S Canara Bank on 27 January, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:7535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
PUNNAD SERVICE CO OP BANK
IRITTY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,RAJEEV
K.C,AGED 53 YEARS,S/O P.K KARUNAKARAN
NAMBIAR,DWANANYA,PATHIRIPARAMBU,CHOVVA,ELAYAVOOR
VILLAGE,KANNUR, PIN - 670703
BY ADVS.
NIKITA NAIR C.S.
JOSEPH GEORGE
VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
ALIF K.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 M/S CANARA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,VI-3033-B2,EXCEL
CASTLE,OPPOSITE KAIRATHI KIRATHI TEMPLE,IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670703
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
CANARA BANK LTD,VI-3033-B2,EXCEL CASTLE,OPPOSITE
KAIRATHI KIRATHI TEMPLE,IRITTY,KANNUR, PIN - 670703
3 POLICE INSPECTOR
CYBER CRIME(CEN) POLICE STATION WEST
DIVISION,BENGALURU, PIN - 560079
4 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR BAKERY
JUNCTION, P.B.NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:7535
5 UNION OF INDIA
, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE JEEVAN DEEP
MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
AKHILA NAMBIAR(K/737/2021)
OTHER PRESENT:
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA SC SRI JITHESH MENON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:7535
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 44807 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd
respondent bank to lift the freezing of the petitioner's
bank account bearing No.42573070000258.
2. The petitioner's case is that, it is the holder of
the above bank account with the 2nd respondent bank. The
said account has been debit freezed by the 2 nd respondent
pursuant to the requisition received from the 3 rd
respondent. The action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2.
4. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent bank
submitted that the disputed amount is Rs.5/-lakh. The
said submission is recorded.
5. In considering an identical matter, this Court in
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
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],
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
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
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
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 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 2nd 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 it's 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;
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
(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
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 it's contentions in this Writ Petition are left
open and reserved to the petitioner, 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;
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
(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
rkc/27.01.25
WP(C) NO. 44807 OF 2024
2025:KER:7535
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44807/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT
DETAILS
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 06/09/2024
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE
PERIOD FROM 08/04/2024 TO 10/05/2024 OF
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
5/10/2024 TO THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
8/10/2024 TO THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
