Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 743 (KER)

Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India

2023-09-25

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The Unified Payment Interface (UPI), has transformed the financial spectrum in India; and in particular, the manner in which people transact money. Its easy-to-use interface and ingrained security features, has made “UPI” the preferred mode of payment for millions of Indians, making it the fastest growing payments systems in the world. 2. However, like in many good initiatives, there are chinks in the armour - in a manner of speaking; Charlatans commit Cyber Crimes and create byzantine maze of accounts, through which ill-gotten wealth is moved and parked. 3. The National Cyber Crimes Portal (NCCP) has been set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the aegis of the Indian Cyber Crime Co-ordination Centre, to enable any person - who becomes a victim of Cyber Crime, to register on the said portal; which then triggers an appropriate response and criminal investigation. 4. Unfortunately, a situation as afore has thrown the petitioners in these cases in the cross hairs of the Police and their Banks, because it appears to be alleged that some one, who had indulged in a cyber financial crime in another part of India, had transferred money to their account; consequent to which, the competent Investigating and Police Authorities issued advisory to their Banks to freeze their accounts. 5. The petitioners assert that they have literally caught between the “Devil and the Deep Sea” because, for one, they do not know why their accounts have been frozen and for the second, they are now facing incalculable loss in their business and unspeakable prejudice, with their accounts being rendered unavailable to them to operate, all because some unknown person, sitting in a far off and remote place in India or even abroad, is alleged to have made “UPI” transactions in their accounts as part of small trading or payment against services bona-fide rendered, including in restaurants and retail shops. 6. The petitioners assert that, on account of the orders of freezing of their accounts in this fashion, the trust of the business community in the ‘UPI’ system has been severely shaken; and therefore, pray that this Court come to their aid, issuing appropriate orders and safeguards. 7. In response, Sri. 6. The petitioners assert that, on account of the orders of freezing of their accounts in this fashion, the trust of the business community in the ‘UPI’ system has been severely shaken; and therefore, pray that this Court come to their aid, issuing appropriate orders and safeguards. 7. In response, Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari - learned Central Government Counsel, affirmed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had initiated and set up the ‘NCCP’ with the laudable intent to protect and offer succour to victims of Cyber Crimes and explained that when complaints are registered on it, it immediately generates an appropriate response from the jurisdictional investigating and Police Authorities. He predicated that the orders impugned in these cases - issued by various Police Authorities in other States in India - are necessary and imperative steps initiated by such Agencies to track the sums involved in Cyber Crimes, routed by the accused through different accounts. He argued that, therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs do not have any further role to play in this matter; and that this for the Police Authorities concerned to inform this Court whether the investigations are still continuing and if the orders freezing the accounts of the petitioners, require to be maintained. 8. On hearing Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari as afore, I pointedly asked him why the account of an individual should be frozen fully, even when the requisition for the same - made by the Police Authorities concerned - refer to the alleged proceeds of crime involved. He submitted that he has no instruction in this regard, because such orders are issued by the Police Authorities and thus left it to this Court to take appropriate decision. 9. The afore so recorded, I am fully cognizant that this is not the stage for this Court to intervene in the manner, as has been pleaded by the petitioners because, the investigation into the various Cyber Crimes - which are the genesis of the orders impugned in these cases - are still underway. However, the petitioners, who, prima facie, are all ordinary law abiding citizens, have little capacity to track or follow the cases, which has lead them to the present situation; or even to obtain its present status because, the requisitions to the Various Banks have been made by the Police Stations in other States - some very far off. However, the petitioners, who, prima facie, are all ordinary law abiding citizens, have little capacity to track or follow the cases, which has lead them to the present situation; or even to obtain its present status because, the requisitions to the Various Banks have been made by the Police Stations in other States - some very far off. They assert that their entire accounts are frozen, thus incapacitating their businesses and affecting their daily lives, solely because a person or persons - with whom they had no previous acquaintance - happened to transfer money from his/their account to theirs, using the ‘UPI’ platform, as part of bona fide business transaction - often against payment of small bills qua retail sale, restaurant food sale etc. They assert that most of them are retailers and small businessmen, who trusted the ‘UPI’ regime of fiscal transactions for its convenience and safety; but has now been rudely shaken. 10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that, certain specific safeguards will have to be now infused into process, lest the people loose their faith in the ‘UPI’ system itself, especially when it is spear headed and recognised internationally as a vanguard initiative of India. 11. In the afore perspective, when the requisitions in these cases - by various Police Authorities in several States of India - mention the exact amount suspected to have been credited to the accounts of the petitioners herein, one fails to fathom why their bank accounts in full, should remain frozen. This is more so because, even when the sums in question may have found credit in the accounts of the petitioners, unless the investigation eventually reveals that they were complicit in the Cyber Crime, or had received the same being aware of it, they could never be construed to be accused. 12. In fact, should the criminal enquiry found otherwise, it will be doubtful if the amounts in question could be even recovered from the petitioners, if they have received it as part of bona-fide or other valid transactions, unaware of it being proceeds of crime. 13. 12. In fact, should the criminal enquiry found otherwise, it will be doubtful if the amounts in question could be even recovered from the petitioners, if they have received it as part of bona-fide or other valid transactions, unaware of it being proceeds of crime. 13. In the conspectus of the above, I order these Writ Petitions with the following directions: (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.