High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions (as above)

Shamsudheen P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed with directions: (a) Bank to immediately seek the amount to be kept in freeze from the Investigation Authority and complete this within one month; (b) if a specific amount is mentioned, freeze to be confined to that amount, allowing transactions beyond that limit; (c) if no information is received within two months, petitioner may transact fully, subject to future police information; (d) alternatively, if police require entire account freeze, the Bank will inform the petitioner and continue freeze for eight months; (e) if after eight months the requisition is not withdrawn, petitioner may approach the Court again with reserved contentions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions (as above)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shamsudheen P.

Respondents

  • State of Andhra Pradesh
  • The State Nodal Officer, National Cyber Reporting Crime Portal
  • Station House Officer, Srikakulam II Town Police Station
  • Federal Bank Ltd
  • Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, Valancherry Branch
  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Muhammed Ameen
  • • Istinaf Abdullah

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. S. Manu, DSGI
  • • Sri. Mohan Jacob George, SC
  • • Smt. Vidya KuriaKose, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges a blanket, indefinite debit freeze imposed on the petitioner’s bank account pursuant to police requisitions. The Kerala High Court recalls its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India, which cautioned against blanket freezes and directed proportionate action by banks in coordination with law enforcement. In the present case the bank has received requisitions that allegedly seek to freeze all credits in the account but without specifying any particular amount. The court notes that such an unbounded freeze would injure the account holder’s livelihood and disrupt ordinary banking activity, undermining the rights of account holders and the banking system. The court clarifies the balance between investigative needs and individual rights and reiterates the principle that a blanket, indefinite freeze should be avoided unless imperative. While acknowledging the bank’s practical difficulty, the court holds that it is bound by the Dr. Sajeer framework and must ensure protections for the petitioner. Following Dr. Sajeer, the court directs the bank to secure the exact amount to be frozen from the Investigation Authority within one month; if an amount is specified, the freeze is to be limited to that sum; if no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to future police information. It also provides an alternative and an eight-month contingency, ensuring investigation while safeguarding livelihoods.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that a blanket, indefinite freeze on his account, issued without a specified amount, jeopardizes livelihood and ordinary banking operations, and seeks protections that limit freezes to specified sums or time-bound periods, balancing investigative needs with account-holders’ rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ position is not elaborated in the text; the court notes the bank’s incapacity to operate under an unspecified freeze and bases its directions on the framework established in the cited Dr. Sajeer decision to safeguard both investigation and account-holders’ interests.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe judgment explicitly relies on and follows the Dr. Sajeer decision, which held that blanket indefinite freezes are deleterious and should be handled with proportionate, time-bound measures.

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 Shamsudheen P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 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. 41887 OF 2023 ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SHAMSUDHEEN.P, AGED 52 YEARS *[CORRECTED] S/O ALIKUTTY.K, PUTHUKKUDY HOUSE, KARIPPOL (P.O), VETTICHIRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676552. ``` ``` *ADDRESS OF PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS ``` ``` SHAMSUDHEEN. P, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, VALANCHERY KATTIPPARUTHI, VALANCHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676552. ``` ``` AS PER ORDER DTD 16.1.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WP(C). ``` ``` BY ADVS. MUHAMMED AMEEN ISTINAF ABDULLAH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN – 522023. ``` ``` 2THE STATE NODAL OFFICER, NATIONAL CYBER REPORTING CRIME PORTAL, OFFICE COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, LAKDIPOOL, HYDERABAD, PIN – 500004. 3STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM II TOWN POLICE STATION, RANASTHALI, NEW COLONY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDARA PRADESH, PIN – 532001. 4FEDERAL BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, FEDERAL TOWERS, PERIYARNAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA, PIN – 683101. ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023 ``` ``` -2- ``` ``` 5THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD, VALANCHERRY BRANCH, KONNAKKATIL TOWERS, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676552 ``` ``` 6STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001 ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, DSGI SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP ``` ``` 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. 41887 OF 2023 ``` ``` -3- ``` ## `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. 41887 OF 2023` ``` -4- ``` ``` 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 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. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023` ``` -5- ``` ``` 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 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. 41887 OF 2023` ``` -6- ``` ``` (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 petitioner/account holder to deal with his 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 petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023` ``` -7- ``` ``` 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 ``` ``` petitioner/account holder 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 ``` ``` petitioner/account holder will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023 ``` ``` -8- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 41887 OF 2023 ``` ``` -9- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41887/2023` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` |`EXHIBIT P1`|`THE COPY OF TRADE LICENSE FEE RECEIPT`| |---|---| ||`DATED 17/09/2020 ISSUED BY VALANCHERRY`| ||`MUNCIPALITY`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF`| ||`PASSBOOK DATED 20/10/2009`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY`| ||`A.P POLICE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF`| ||`ANDHRA PRADESH DATED 18/10/2022`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED`| ||`BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`16/11/2023`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT`| ||`25/09/2023 IN WPC 28797 OF 2023 BY`| ||`THIS HON'BLE COURT`|