William Jose v. Director General of Police, Kerala; Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCRB Cyber Police; Indian Bank

## `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. 33069 OF 2022` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` WILLIAM JOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. JOSE, KOLADY HOUSE, MOONNEKKAR, KARIMBA, PALAKKAD-678 597. ``` ``` BY ADVS. A.B.MOHANAKUMAR SUNITHA KUMARI K.G. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.` - `2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRB, CYBER POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004.` - `3 THE INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, VYTTILA BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, 29/373F, GROUND FLOOR, RAY BHAVAN, NH 47, BYE-PASS, ERNAKULAM-682 019. BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP SRI.S.EASWARAN` ``` 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. 33069 OF 2022 ``` ``` -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. 33069 OF 2022` ``` -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 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. 33069 OF 2022` ``` -4- ``` ``` 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. 33069 OF 2022` ``` -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 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. 33069 OF 2022` ``` -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 ``` ``` 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. 33069 OF 2022 ``` ``` -7- 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. 33069 OF 2022 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33069/2022` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/03/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK. ```