High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions as st...

M/S LOGIX IT SOLUTION and Sumesh P.S. v. Punjab National Bank and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed of with directions modeled on Dr. Sajeer (supra): (a) The bank must immediately request the Investigation Authority to specify the exact amount to be frozen or held in lien in the first petitioner’s account, within one month of the judgment. (b) If a specific amount is stated, the freeze shall be confined to that amount. (c) If no information is received within two months, the petitioners may transact fully, subject to any future information from the Police. (d) As an alternative, if the police require the entire account to be frozen, the bank shall inform the petitioners and continue the freeze for up to eight months. (e) If after eight months the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioners may approach the Court again, with all contentions reserved.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S LOGIX IT SOLUTION
  • SUMESH P.S.

Respondents

  • Punjab National Bank, represented by its authorised officer, Chaithanya Buildings, Valapad Thrissur District, PIN – 680567.
  • The Station House Officer Cyber Crime Cell, Kotwali Kanpur Nagar Police Station Near Bada Chaura ha, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, PIN – 208004.
  • The Sub Inspector, Asheesh Gussain, Cyber Crime Police Station Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, PIN – 248001
  • Sankalp Sharma IPS, SP Deoria, SP Office, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, PIN – 274001.
  • The Station House Officer Cyber Crime Cell Commissionerate Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, PIN – 201001.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.T. Manoj
  • • Jestina Mariam Joseph
  • • Litishya Francis

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition questions a blanket freeze of bank accounts under a police requisition. The Kerala High Court references its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), where it directed banks and police authorities to avoid indefinite, blanket freezes and to align freezes with the amounts requisitioned by the investigating agency. Here, the first petitioner seeks to prevent any partial operation of accounts by a blanket debit freeze of all sums. The court notes that such unbounded freezes harm account holders’ livelihoods and the banking system, and are deleterious unless strictly necessary for investigation. It emphasizes balancing investigative needs with fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood and routine banking transactions. Following the precedent, the court issues targeted directions: (a) the bank must promptly request the Investigation Authority to specify the exact amount to be frozen or held in lien in the account of the first petitioner, within one month of the judgment; (b) if a particular amount is stated, the freeze will be confined to that sum; (c) if no information is received within two months, the petitioners may operate their accounts fully, subject to any future police information; (d) as an alternative, if the entire account must be frozen for stated reasons, the bank will inform the petitioners and continue the freeze for up to eight months; (e) after eight months, if the requisition is not withdrawn, the petitioners may approach the Court again. The order aims to safeguard the investigation while protecting account holders’ rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that a blanket freeze of all credits in the accounts without a specified amount or time-frame is unjustified and injurious to the account holders’ livelihood. Citing the court’s earlier ruling in Dr. Sajeer v. RBI, they urge that freezes must be proportional to the police requisitioned amount and time-bound, allowing normal transactions where no precise sum is demanded.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents seek to preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation and insist that freezing funds in accordance with police requisitions is essential. They argue that blanket, indefinite freezes impede investigation and disrupt normal banking functions, and emphasize the need to comply with requisitioned sums to safeguard the inquiry.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe judgment explicitly relies on and follows the principles laid down in Dr. Sajeer, directing tailored freezes rather than blanket, indefinite ones.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S LOGIX IT SOLUTION and Sumesh P.S. v. Punjab National Bank and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024 ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1M/S LOGIX IT SOLUTION REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SUMESH P.S, S/O P.K.SOMAN, PANDATH HOUSE EDAMUTTAM, VALAPPAD, EDAMUTTAM THRISSUR DISTRICT-KERALA, PIN – 680568. ``` ``` 2SUMESH P.S, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O P.K.SOMAN, PANDATH HOUSE EDAMUTTAM, VALAPPAD, EDAMUTTAM THRISSUR DISTRICT-KERALA, PIN – 680568. ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.T.MANOJ JESTINA MARIAM JOSEPH LITISHYA FRANCIS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHAITHANYA BUILDINGS, VALAPAD THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680567. 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME CELL, KOTWALI KANPUR NAGAR POLICE STATION NEAR BADA CHAURAHA DISTRICT, KANPUR NAGAR UTTAR PRADHESH, PIN – 208004. 3THE SUB INSPECTOR, ASHEESH GUSSAIN, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND,INDIA, PIN – 248001 4SANKALP SHARMA IPS, SP DEORIA, SP OFFICE, DEORIA, UTTAR PRADHESH, PIN – 274001. 5THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME CELL COMMISSIONERATE GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADHESH,INDIA, PIN – 201001. ``` ``` SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` In matters relating to the freezing of accounts, this Court has already delivered a judgment inDr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of ``` ``` India [2024 (1) KLT 826]. ``` ``` 2.In the aforesaid judgment, certain ``` ``` directions were issued to the respective Banks, as also the Police Authorities, to ``` ``` continue the freeze for a certain period of ``` ``` time and only to the extent which was ``` ``` requisitioned by the Police. ``` ``` 3.However, what makes this case ``` ``` different from the one that was considered by ``` ``` this Court in the aforesaid judgment, is that the requisitions received by the Bank are stated to contain no particular amount, but seek a complete and blanket debit freeze of ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024` ``` -3- ``` ``` all the amounts in credit therein. ``` ``` 4.The legal issues and the imperatives ``` ``` involved have already been discussed by this Court in Dr.Sajeer(supra). A blanket freeze indefinitely, and without any period of time being stipulated by the Police, is certainly deleterious, not only to the account holders ``` ``` but also to the system as a whole; and the view in this regard of this Court is clearly ``` ``` reflected in Dr.Sajeer (supra). ``` ``` 5.However, since the Bank is now ``` ``` incapacitated from allowing the operation of the account of the 1[st] petitioner because the ``` ``` requisition issued to them do not contain any particular amount, I am certain that this ``` ``` Court is enjoined to deal with this matter, sufficientlyprotectingboththe investigation, as also the account holders. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024` ``` -4- ``` ``` I am persuaded to such course because, the blanket freeze of an account, if it is not imperatively necessary, will be an affront to the rights of the account holders and impinges even their right to livelihood, since, in this era, everyone relies upon ``` ``` banking transactions as the primary source. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, following ``` ``` Dr.Sajeer(supra), I dispose of this writ ``` ``` petition with the following directions: ``` ``` (a) The respondent Bank is directed to ``` ``` immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and seek the amount which is required to be kept ``` ``` in freeze or held in lien in the account of ``` ``` the 1[st] petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the ``` ``` date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024 ``` ``` -5- ``` ``` (b) In the event that the Investigating ``` ``` Officer/Police Authority responds to the afore requisition and mentions a particular amount, as being the sum that is required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the ``` ``` respondent Bank will confine the freeze/lien to such an extent and allow the 1[st] ``` ``` petitioner/account holder to deal with their ``` ``` account and transact therein beyond that limit. ``` ``` (c) On the contrary, if no information is ``` ``` receivedfromthePolice ``` ``` Authority/Investigating officer within a ``` ``` period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank, then they will allow the petitioners/account holders to transact fully in their account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024` ``` -6- ``` ``` freeze requisition, subject to any further ``` ``` information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future. ``` - `(d) As an alternative, if the response` ``` from the Police Authority/Investigating ``` ``` Officer is that the entire account be frozen for any reason that is mentioned therein, thentheBankwillinformthe ``` ``` petitioners/account holders accordingly and ``` ``` continue the freeze in such a manner for a ``` ``` further period of eight months thereafter. ``` ``` (e)If, after a period of eight months, ``` ``` the requisition made by the Police ``` ``` Authorities - either to a particular sum or ``` ``` the full amount in the account of the account ``` ``` holder - is not withdrawn, then the ``` ``` petitioners/account holders will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024 ``` ``` -7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to them to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 7121 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7121/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```